Reporting Spam - what are your criteria to define spam ?

[MrSavage]

I'm starting this thread for a couple reasons. One because most of you folks here are experts in the realm of the internet, and second, because it could be educational to me and others. People constantly throw around seeing "spam" results in the index. Here is your chance to explain what you are talking about.

Google does say that no one person can cause a website to drop in rankings. Something is said along those lines. They do also say they want to respond quickly to reports of spam in their index. Of course, this is the conundrum in my opinion.

What the heck is spam in the index? Do you even know? Would you fill out a report if there was an ugly website on the first page of results? Would you call a website will lots of ads or affiliate links as spam?

I always thought spam was when you got unsolicited junk. Well, if you type in buy running shoes and you get all websites about buy running shoes, then essentially that isn't spam. If you see a competitor of yours with a non beautiful website ranking better, is that your definition of spam. Is spam now considered any website that isn't "worthy" in your opinion for getting the ranking it currently has?

Personally I haven't filled out a spam report. I can't figure out the definition. Personally, I don't think most people really know what they are talking about when they throw around the word "spam" as it relates to search results.

I'm all ears. The term, in my opinion has become really lose. It's like a term used to describe ugly websites or sites that in your mind, are indexed higher than they should be. Now is that really fair to report them over that?

Hopefully after posting a few of your definitions, it will educate people what exactly is "spam" in Google index and when to report it. Perhaps there is a page somewhere on Google that explains what they consider "spam" in their index. Perhaps it's a catch all phrase now so that the "good guys" get their sites ranking as they feel they really should.

[tedster]

The wise guy's definition is Sites Positioned Above Mine ;)

My own definition is a url that ranks on a keyword only because of technical tricks. That does not mean a url that ranks AND uses technical tricks - there needs to be clear cut cause and effect in play.

I have only reported spam once in my career, and that was a large network of adult content that was ranking for very non-adult keywords that even grade school kids might use. That particular network vanished 48 hours later.

[bwnbwn]

Type(s) of problem that google considers Spam
Hidden text or links
Misleading or repeated words
Page does not match Google's description
Cloaked page
Deceptive redirects
Doorway pages
Duplicate site or pages

It's like a term used to describe ugly websites

maybe to you but to the owner it is a work of art.

sites that in your mind, are indexed higher than they should be. Now is that really fair to report them over that?

No an it won't do you any good but give them your user name IP address and other personal information, do it enough and the Spam guys just might get tired of your Spam.

Use the above information Google posted and only report valid reports. As tedester said he has only done 1 I did a couple early in my less wiser years.
Reporting Spam is not something you really want to get in the habit of doing unless there is a real valid reason.

I reported a site about a year ago due to the forum had become an adult content heaven and it was removed in a couple days as well. the site came back in the index minus the forum a couple weeks latter.

[signor_john]

Perhaps there is a page somewhere on Google that explains what they consider "spam" in their index.

See Google's Webmaster Guidelines [google.com].

As for reporting spam, I doubt if many people bother unless they're hoping to sabotage a shady competitor. How many site owners have time to report every spammy listing they encounter in a search engine's results?

[MrSavage]

Interesting. I love tedster's definition. That's tis classic stuff. Sounds like you folks are civil in terms of spam reporting. Part of me thinks there are self empowered cyber cops reporting or investigating sites in their field. I've established that privacy is certainly something I will NEVER believe when it comes to my online works. The point is, I can bet you that people out there see a site with affiliate links/ads and report that as spam to Google. Of course ONLY if they are ahead of them in the rankings. If at the very least, it might cause your competitors site to receive a lovely Google audit. I'm not quite convinced that people use spam reporting responsibly. Of course Google want quality sites, and if you report to them a sub par site, I'm sure they would be happy to investigate or penalize. You show them the smoke, Google finds the fire. I want to believe that this doesn't happen. Believe me. I just think that over the past month, my paranoia or faith has really been shaken in how the internet is now operating.

[Hissingsid]

On the subject of link buying. I used to get heated about sites that buy links, now it is difficult to find commercial sites that don't buy links to some extent. I now don't see how Google could select which sites to ban for link buying without potentially decimating the index and leaving itself with lame sites of little real interest to users.

Although Google encourages you to report link buyers and seller I wonder if it is worth the effort unless you have got a site above you that is really taking the pee.

Cheers

Sid