Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Yesterday I was reading the leaked Google Spam Recognition Guide [searchbistro.com...] and I noticed this:
"the presence of AdSense PPC on top of the ODP content makes this site...Offensive"
Of course I have a load of pages that are remixes of some ODP content (with proper attribution) and I have been running Adsense on them. So that may explain why I have been penalised in the past and certainly explains why my Reinclusion request failed.
I don't disagree with Google's logic about adverts on pages with ODP data, I just wish it had been in the Webmaster guidelines rather than in this document we weren't meant to see. I have removed Adsense from these pages but I wonder how long I should wait before submitting another reinclusion request.
Regarding how long to wait, have you read this thread, [webmasterworld.com...]
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. It isn't an MFA. It was around for years before Adsense and DMOZ and Musicmoz list plenty of it's pages (spontaneously). It has a lot of pages and some of them include modified data from DMOZ.
Plus the thread you point to is about getting unbanned from Adsense isn't it? Adsense isn't the problem - it's being buried in the SERPS.
You may not have designed it as such, but it must now fit the profile.
From what I've read about re-inclusion requests, sites need to be like the driven snow, I'd get a cynic to look over your linkage before sending in the request.
BTW, did you consider removing the ODP data?
Good idea about the 3rd party looking at my site - although I don't think I'll resubmit for inclusion for a few months.
My first thought was to get rid of the DMOZ data. But after reflection, my users do seem to like this data. Basically I have pages about bands and quite a lot of people click through to see my rearranged lists of band websites. I get the impression that it's these pages that get added to favourites most often.
I am interested that Google seems to regard itself as the guardian of the purity of DMOZ. Nowhere in the ODP licence does it state about not putting adverts on pages from DMOZ. I went to the DMOZ list of sites using ODP data. I clicked on the first 10 under A and found 8 of them with Adsense adverts on them. These are sites they have added to their own directory.
How can you tell?
Iguana hasn't provided any data that even hints at a connection between his low rankings and the linked spam recognition guide.
The details he has given by now actually make it a reasonable assumption that his pages would even pass a manual review. My guess would be that there are some other problems, either with the site or with Google. But of course, I'm just as blindly speculating as anyone else here...
I have no proof that it was originally penalised as "fitting the profile" through the algo. The same fate was suffered by two other hobby sites (no ODP/no adverts/no affilate links/all original content) but they have recovered to some extent. Glengara is just warning me to really take an objective look (from his/her experience).
But that one thing (adverts + ODP) means that it would have failed the reinclusion request because of those pages - if that Spam Recognition Guide really is genuine. I think it would pass a manual review today - but I think Google will get sick of me if I resubmit it so quickly after my last request.
The question of what that eval.google exercise was all about is still open. Maybe it was used to tune the Algo and recognise PPC + ODP - perhaps even recognising ODP by the fact that I attributed the data properly to DMOZ in the way they request in their licence.
bird, are you also known as hbird? If so, you approved the site for JoeAnt.
I am interested that Google seems to regard itself as the guardian of the purity of DMOZ. Nowhere in the ODP licence does it state about not putting adverts on pages from DMOZ.
Google isn't trying to guard the purity of DMOZ; it simply wants to keep spam and duplicate content out of its index. Google probably feels that the combination of recycled DMOZ data and AdSense ads has a high statistical probability of being SE spam (or at least of little benefit to users), so it gets penalized or filtered. And if some other sites don't get caught (or don't get caught right away), so what? Life isn't fair, and just because Bob got away with running a red light doesn't mean Bill gets to run a red light, too.
I am interested that Google seems to regard itself as the guardian of the purity of DMOZ. Nowhere in the ODP licence does it state about not putting adverts on pages from DMOZ. I went to the DMOZ list of sites using ODP data. I clicked on the first 10 under A and found 8 of them with Adsense adverts on them. These are sites they have added to their own directory.Google only regards itself as the guardian of Google.
All of the above are independent of one another.
I'm not really complaining the Google policy - the logic makes perfect sense. I just wish it had been stated clearly in somewhere other than a leaked document - or stated as a policy of use of the ODP data. And it should be stated that an entire site will be penalised even if it has a minority of pages that use a carefully selected, re-categorised and added to data from the ODP - if it puts PPC adverts on it. By taking the adverts off, I will no longer be offensive. I don't give a damn whether these pages are regarded as duplicate content and no longer appear in the index - they are a service to my users. Whether the duplicate content filter will catch them is another matter because they are pretty different in some cases.
trinorthlighting
Scraping is scraping. Using a data feed from the ODP is encouraged and licenced by the ODP.
Powdork
Points well made. I am guilty of thinking of Google as one organisation with one policy.
a common phrase in legal matters is
"ignorance of the law is no excuse"
I accept that as regards the law of the country I live in. At least they publish the laws.
I just wish it had been stated clearly in somewhere other than a leaked document - or stated as a policy of use of the ODP data. And it should be stated that an entire site will be penalised even if it has a minority of pages that use a carefully selected, re-categorised and added to data from the ODP - if it puts PPC adverts on it.
But it may not be that simple. In fact, it probably isn't that simple. The leaked document to which you refer was simply a rating manual for low-level contract workers, and we don't know how their ratings are (or were) used. I'm not the most computationally sophisticated guy on the planet, but if I were Google, I'd use such ratings (or specific issues such as AdSense ads on ODP data) as scoring factors, not as binary on-off switches for a filter or penalty box.
I'd use such ratings...as scoring factors, not as binary on-off switches
You're right -- that's what GoogleGuy worked to clarify in our thread here:
The system that was up at eval.google.com was a console
to evaluate quality passively, not to tweak our results actively.[webmasterworld.com...]
Message #17
Wouldn't count on it ;-)
Once "pinged" it may not be as simple as taking a one step back for everything to be Ticketyboo, do get that third party view.
Howzat? Poetry no less....
One year ago I starteded this 59 pages thread [webmasterworld.com...]
I am celebrating this month a one year of holy ban from google. After struggling with the re-inclusion requests and google vague responses for months, it turned out to be that it's not ODP content that caused my site to be completely banned (not just burried in the index as your case), but it is that meta searching engine in my site that looked like an automatic page generation software in the eyes of google.
I can write thousands of lines debating google policy and its being vague, specially about the duplication content issue generally speaking and ODP issue specifically.
I dont know how or why google provide a modified version of ODP data (actually they provide three versions), but penalizes sites that use ODP data, even parially, dramatically.
Cheers,
moftary
thanks, that's very interesting (and yes I did for a short while have search pages generated from a search feed). Along with the other informative responses, I see that just looking for a single reason may not be enough.
Stop thinking about my users who like my ODP based pages - just reduce everything to the original content and no added value.
I dont know how or why google provide a modified version of ODP data (actually they provide three versions), but penalizes sites that use ODP data, even parially, dramatically.
First, there's obviously disagreement as to whether Google penalizes sites just for using DMOZ data.
Second, Google provides the DMOZ data in its own directory, so why should it clutter its search results with the same data from other DMOZ-based directories? Filtering makes perfect sense--at least from the POV of users, who are Google's target audience.
I quite like the vagueness, makes the time spent looking at G seem worthwhile ;-)
First, there's obviously disagreement as to whether Google penalizes sites just for using DMOZ data.Second, Google provides the DMOZ data in its own directory, so why should it clutter its search results with the same data from other DMOZ-based directories? Filtering makes perfect sense--at least from the POV of users, who are Google's target audience.
I am not saying that google should include the very same data from ODP based sites. I am debating google policy about penalizing a whole site for using ODP data partially. Of course here I am being with the side of people who beleive so.
I am also debating the vagueness of google policy and their responses. They clearly justify that by not giving SE spammers hints about their index and algorithms.
Well.. Spammers do already learn much from their mistakes. Spam a domain and get banned, very fine, let's move into other domain and spam it differently. Innocent webmasters do not, on the other hand, as most are all about one site or two and dont really know that one single modification or "addon" to their site could make it say bye bye to google.
Just my two cents..
Or at least a bad poetry filter.;)
I am also debating the vagueness of google policy and their responses. They clearly justify that by not giving SE spammers hints about their index and algorithms.Well.. Spammers do already learn much from their mistakes. Spam a domain and get banned, very fine, let's move into other domain and spam it differently. Innocent webmasters do not, on the other hand...
But how many innocent Webmasters (especially those who aren't trying to make a living from the Internet) hang out on forums like Webmaster World or read Google's guidelines? Providing more hints to the "in the know" crowd would ultimately skew Google's index toward commercial and big-media sites.
It might make better sense for Google to stop communicating with Webmasters and SEOs altogether: Just lock the doors of the 'plex and be more silent than the CIA. That wouldn't be as much fun for the search engineers, though, and Matt Cutts's blog would be much less interesting to read. :-)
But how many innocent Webmasters (especially those who aren't trying to make a living from the Internet) hang out on forums like Webmaster World or read Google's guidelines?
