Multi Domains Crowding "Smart Spam" Is Defeating Google Webspam Team

[reseller]

I see part of SEO industry and Webmasters communities are impressed of the effectiveness of latest Panda and Penguin algo updates to kill "traditional" spam mentioned in Google quality Guidelines [support.google.com...] .

However I have noticed that Multi Domains Crowding "Smart Spam" has emerged victorious regardless Panda & Penguin.

Allow me to clarify what I mean by "Multiple Domains Crowding (which is something entirely different than "Google Domain Crowding problem").

Multiple Domains Crowding Spam: Its a specific spam technique to own more than one top position on first page of Google SERPs for the same search term by several different domains you own or lease.

I prefer not to talk about "How To" of the said spam method as its not my mission to teach how to spam Google.

For example a kind WebmasterWorld member has sent me some search queries related to niche "Assisted Living" which illustrated how at least 3 different domains of same owner are within top 10 results of first page of Google Serps for the same search query. Such spam method is pushing possible valuable sites of honest webmasters out of top ranking on Google Serps.

I wish to mention that Multiple Domains Crowding spam isn't something new. In fact it has been know among Black Hat SEOes for several years. It is sad and discouraging for White Hat SEOes and Webmasters to see Google Websapm Team unable to win the war against Multiple Domains Crowding Spam and neither Panda nor Penguin have been able to solve the said spam problem.

And I don't see any effect on Multiple Domains Crowding spam by current Google algo rollout which Matt Cutts has announced recently, unfortunately.

[purplekitty]

This isn't really surprising when you have Matt Cutts telling you, yeah, start a new site if you've been hit by Penguin.

And new sites are replacing the sites that used to rank before Penguin.

I've started getting emails from SEO companies suggesting that I build multiple sites for my niche to make sure that I'll easily be able to recover with a new site if I get hit by Google updates.

If I wasn't an actual businessperson but was instead a spammer looking for quick traffic, I'd probably allocate my time to just building new sites too.

[EditorialGuy]

There is a good chance that those top 3 results either belong to the same site or belong to 3 different sites which belong to the same owner. I.e consumers clicking on any of the Top 3 results might end buying from the same company.

True, and in the offline retail world, a customer going downtown or to a mall might shop at Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy, which are owned by the same company. From the customer's point of view, that's just fine, because each is a different brand.

Similarly, Joe and Jo User couldn't care less if the top three organic results in Google Search are from three different sites that happen to be owned by the same company. They might be annoyed if the top three results are from the same site (or clones of the same site), but that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

[reseller]

True, and in the offline retail world, a customer going downtown or to a mall might shop at Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy, which are owned by the same company. From the customer's point of view, that's just fine, because each is a different brand.

In the current discussion of Multiple Domains Crowding spam, for the same search query the sites at top 3 results might be three different sites of the same owner which are similar or only differ a little in content, so we are not talking about different brands.

[EditorialGuy]

for the same search query the sites at top 3 results might be three different sites of the same owner which are similar or only differ a little in content, so we are not talking about different brands.

All the more reason for Google to say "Enough, already" and let online retailers fight it out on the advertising battlefield instead of in the SEO trenches, as has been done with Product Search.

[reseller]

I think consumers should be made aware of the fact that there is neither diversity nor competition on Top 10 organic search results of Google serps. If a consumer clicks on the first 3 results and decides not to buy from those 3 sites, he can then click on the forth or fifth results and buy from that site. However, in fact he is still buying from the same owner of the first 3 sites.

[ColourOfSpring]

All the more reason for Google to say "Enough, already" and let online retailers fight it out on the advertising battlefield instead of in the SEO trenches, as has been done with Product Search.

This problem has gotten worse since Panda/Penguin. So I guess because of Panda/Penguin, Google can say "we give up, commercial results are now paid only" rather than revert back to pre-Panda/Penguin when there was more variety in commercial searches because there were more independents in the top 10s than these "savvy" companies representing themselves several times over via tricks / churn & burn sites + crowd-hosted (whatever you call it) Amazon/eBay blocks of results.

So Google's next move to solve the problem they created is go to a paid-only model for commercial searches.

Well played Google, well played.

[CaptainSalad2]

>>>Top 10 organic search results of Google serps<<<

Does 10 organic slots still exist? I mainly see 7 organic results. Top slots comprise of official add word partner sites such as yell.. always number one, two and three across most local service searches.

Domain name crowding would be very simple fix from a programming point of view, very simple..

If they don't tackle domain NAME crowding and go straight to fixing “multiple domain name” crowding, oh dear, Unless manual intervention is taken against "domain name crowding", from an ALGO point of view the only way I can see them tackle that is to use "WHOIS info".

Anyone fear this thread achieving a new penalty? (assuming google read this forum)

A new “multiple domain name penalty" will then hit everyone who owns more than a single domain name, and it will be written off as collateral damage because people should “put all their focus into one site”.

Collateral damage hitting web designers who register their clients domain names because the client is either useless or requested it..

This wont stop the black hatters who will simple register the domain names under a relatives name and it will be business as normal for "domain name crowding"!

[EditorialGuy]

I guess because of Panda/Penguin, Google can say "we give up, commercial results are now paid only" rather than revert back to pre-Panda/Penguin when there was more variety in commercial searches because there were more independents in the top 10s than these "savvy" companies representing themselves several times over via tricks / churn & burn sites + crowd-hosted (whatever you call it) Amazon/eBay blocks of results.

I can remember a time when eBay (to use one of your examples) was a lot more dominant in the SERPs than it is now. Ditto for thin affiliate sites, which once were nearly all you could find if you searched on, say, the Hotel Whatever in Touristville.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Google Search is an index, not a directory, and the purpose of a spider-based search engine is to organize and rank content on pages. It may be true that a megasite like Amazon benefits from its sheer size and number of inbound links, but Amazon product pages do tend to have user reviews that add value to e-commerce listings. Since Google Search is more about identifying content on a page than figuring out who has the best price, the best customer service, or the lowest shipping fees, Amazon's "added value" in terms of content is going to help Amazon rank higher than independent sites that lack such content.

So how can Google clean up its commercial SERPs? One approach might be to:

1) Make it more difficult to rank for purely transactional pages.

2) Make it easier to rank for informational pages (even in the context of transactional queries).

In other words, in a search on "unicorn cheeses," the algorithm would tend to favor pages with intrinsically-useful content about unicorn cheeses, and the e-commerce vendors who'd rank best would be those who made the effort to be authoritative sources of advice for buyers and fanciers of unicorn cheeses. Google's SERPs would improve, and niche e-commerce sites run by product experts--or by business people who were willing to invest in "added value" content--would stand a better chance of competing with black hats and general-interest megasites.

[reseller]

A new “multiple domain name penalty" will then hit everyone who owns more than a single domain name, and it will be written off as collateral damage because people should “put all their focus into one site”.

I think as any other Google algos changes, this one would have its own collateral damage share too.

However I don't think Google would only look at number of domains owned by a specific company or individual as the only signal of Multiple Domains Crowding spammers.

I think for example when Google notice several domains which belonging to same company are within top 10 listing of search results for a specific search query, Google would take a close look at the profile of said company.

I might expect the profile of a company practicing Multiple Domains Crowding spam to include something like:

- company owns a main domain.

- Company might owns several other domains of just slightly different content than content of the main domain.

- Company might owns several mini sites containing only few pages of similar or very thin content linking back to the company main domain.

- Company might owns one or several "thin" blogs linking back to the main domain.

- Company might be leasing one or several sites to display the company ads which link back to the company main domain.

- etc...

I don't think the profile of a White Hat company which owns several domains would look like above ;-)

[indyank]

but Amazon product pages do tend to have user reviews that add value to e-commerce listings. Since

Why is that internet users leave such big grammatically correct reviews on sites like Amazon.com, Tripadvisor etc. and not on others? What is the mystery behind their successful reviews? It is nice to see an @EditorialGuy being this to notice... :)

[Martin Ice Web]

@indyrank,

very good question. On my Reviews 90% say: good item, works well, like in description.
First: I guess that Amazon reviews have a facebook like status. I mean it´s probably nice to know that 50.000 poeple may read their comment and base their buying tendencies on this.

Second: In Germany there was a statistic that about 30% of the reviews are fake. Fake in sense of getting better prices next time or fakes written by manufacturer. This ones tend to be very grammatically correct.

I guess that this is a short time that this will be "in". The more reviews are there the less is counting the single one. Poeple get bored to write if they think it is nothing worth.

Have a look at ebay Reviews, they tend to be very, very short.


@Eguy, that´s not what Google wants. They want to make money. Informational searches are not putting as much Money into their pokets as transactional searches.

IN the last time i see many big sites make commercials on TV again or on big sports events. I notice them since panda/penguin.

[reseller]

It seems the current Google algo rollout is still not having any effect on Multiple Domains Crowding spam.

I.e Google algo updates Panda, Penguin and current algo rollout having ZERO effect on the "Smart Spam" of Multiple Domains Crowding.

I.e Google's Top 10 listings of search results are still mostly occupied by Domain Clustering results and/or results of Multiple Domains Crowding spam. Very sad news for Google's users, indeed!

[EditorialGuy]

@Eguy, that´s not what Google wants. They want to make money. Informational searches are not putting as much Money into their pokets as transactional searches.

They could make even more from transactional searches if they didn't give away the store.

[besnette]

I'd like to share a paraphrased version of an email conversation I had with someone a few weeks ago, that after several back-and-forths...

....turns out he is a retired google engineer -

He emailed me... and since it's against the TOS of WebmasterWorld to quote from private emails, I'll paraphrase what he said

This email stared back on June 4, before this current update of the past week or so.

He emailed me, frustrated that his search for information kept leading him to well ranked sites that look nice when you land on them, but are nothing more than thin or regurgitated information that has one goal of getting personal information (a referral) - that is obviously going to a larger site or conglomerate...

He went on to thank me for my site, for helping my users to make smart, informed choices, and that I seemed to genuinely care about what I do, and my users. He thanked me to for linking to other websites that are useful.(.which, I do freely if I find a good site that compliments my site's offerings....again, it's for my users...never has it been done for a 'link exchange') I was thrilled to hear this feedback..


I emailed him back, and knowing his background (yes, I shamelessly took the opportunity..) tactfully and nicely explained my growing frustration with him that no matter how much I try to help my users, create original, helpful content, and be tranparent, honest, and all the rest...it seems like it's becoming an increasingly futile effort against the types of sites he was complaining about - sites that, we've learned in this forum a/thread are often owned by a larger, already well ranked parent company or site (multi-domain crowding). Sites that I noticed, in my niche at least, have almost no support socially, sites that it is almost impossible to figure out who is behind them and who is responsible for the content, that lack sincerity, expertise, topical experience, passion, authorship.....etc.

He pointed out to me that Content is still "King" and since he is an ex-googler, and stockholder, and someone who helped with the development of the company, it's his duty to defend them - nicely, in his own words, he explained that he's a big believer that great content will win, and he encouraged me strongly to keep up what I am doing.

After these new updates started rolling out over the past few weeks, and after my niche took a major swing favoring the types of sites menionted above last Friday (it has since 'rolled back' for the most part), I emailed him on that Friday and asked him to look at the results, and tell me if he still though "Content was King."

He emailed back, and didn't have any answers, and seemed to be genuinely taken aback, referring to his first email to me on the 4th of June, and encouraged me to keep going. He said he was going to look into' what was happening..and that's where it was left. I don't expect to hear more, and I understand if he doesn't say more..given who he is..he was nice enough with the time he already gave me.

Thankfully, the serps seemed to go back to what they were, for the most part in my niche...for now. I am guessing that there are still changes probably to come...

Even so..at the moment, there's still big sites that own many sub sites that all rank very well, so that's still adding to the difficulty...

I share this only to highlight that humans can often see what an algorighm can't - yet, and that the 'appearance' of quality does not mean quality, and to see it pointed out by an ex-google insider was validating that not all of us are diluted with the trends we are seeing. There are many of us who put a lot of heart, soul and time into our sites, and to simply wake up one morning to see them buried under one company's numerous sub-sites, and sites that have one goal only - getting your information, has been disheartening..

I'll try to retain hope that quality, original content will still matter down the road, and will eventually be given preference over huge, mostly auto-generated, often-anonymous, muli-domain or hidden-ownership sites.

[diberry]

Besnette, that's really interesting. I've been trying to put it all into perspective lately, and this is the best "timeline" I can come up with:

In the early 2000s, Google's working great. In about 2003 Google introduces Adwords/Adsense. Spamming ensues. Google spends the next few years fighting the spam with mixed results, but mostly the SERPs are still pretty good. But at the same time, big brands and stores are realizing they were wrong to neglect the internet, so they start hiring SEOs. There's a thin line between spammers and SEOs. Plus, online content is growing rapidly out of control. Google knows they're going to have to move to something AI related - the algo engineers can't keep up with all this forever. Maybe Panda was the beginning of machine learning - maybe the algo does the first pruning, and then Panda kicks in so it's dealing with a limited subset (not so overwhelming).

But the bottom line is that it simply isn't working. Your ex-engineer may be right - maybe in the end, better sites will prevail, if they survive. But right now, it's a mess because:

--AI/machine learning is new and just not up to it yet
--When Google fights SEO, they are fighting brands, and the brands are willing to spend ANYTHING to beat them. Or maybe they've just realized this and thrown in the towel to reduce the job of the algos/AI/engineers to something manageable.

In short, I just don't think Google can keep up anymore. I think even with enormous resources, the purest of intentions and the smartest people in the world, it is just not possible to index the entire freakin' web in a meaningful way, and that's Google's business model for search. (Bing seems to act more like a curator, which may be the more sustainable model in the long run). Google may yet get this worked out and come up with a way of indexing the whole web in a way that's satisfying to most visitors. But right now, we're a long way from that.

[besnette]

Diberry, your timeline brings back some memories...a lot good, some not-so-good. I think, though, that your observations and timeline are great. Seems like much of what is "done" when it comes to these updates is sort of an aggressive chemotherapy, trying to weed out the spammers, but taking a lot of healthy, good cells with it, leaving a lot of scar-tissue behind.

I don't envy Google's job whatsoever. If they could ever figure out the 'intent' behind each website, and rank more according to that, the web would probably be a much more enjoyable place.

I try to understand when they have an update going after domains with keywords in them...but gee whiz, so many great sites have that too, and it is, and has been common practice since the dawn of e-time. I mean, let's say you have a business card with limited space, and you put your site's domain name on it. If it is a cutesy, non-relevant name, people are doing to go "duh, what's that." If you have a domain name that describes what you do, people will know immediately by the name alone - what's wrong with that, and why should that be punished based on that alone (i.e. the people building our deck right now have Denver and Decks in their domain name...tells me right away what they do...).

Why be punished for doing adsnese? I know that this is why a lot of spam happens in the first place, but a lot of good sites use it well, and appropriately.

There's so many things that we've heard that updates "go after" and each time, the after effect is usually not positive for a lot of legitimate, good sites.

What I've seen in my niche, is that some of the best ranked sites are very slick, very pretty....but to figure out who is behind them...that's the kicker. They are so often very 'anonymous' and almost robotic, without much of a human aspect to them. Stock photos used ad-nauseum...every single phone number and click goes to who-knows-where. Who wrote this..who published this...who can I contact to ask a question about THIS site that I am on...often times a mystery.

I know that these factors can be retooled, and learned by the smart spammers down the road, but for now, that's much of the common thread that I see, and a huge challenge facing Google, I am well aware.

And yes, as you alluded to...big money brands have the money to spend to stay ahead of the game, which is very unsettling.

They have a near-impossible job to do - something I can respect.

I guess onward...we'll see how it all turns out......

[netsteve]

I have thought about the multiple domain strategy. I see it as more of a diversification strategy than spam.

I know of one company who was ranking first for a group of good keywords and they built a great business around it. After a few years they were doing really well and had multiple warehouses and lots of staff. Now after the latest update google has decided that they don't like their site and have dropped it to the bottom of the first page. Within a week there sales dropped 75% yet they still have all these overheads. Really bad for business.

If you have multiple domains and you use different SEO strategies for each of them there is less chance of you loosing all your business/traffic in one hit. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[besnette]

Netsteve, I am sure that in some cases and examples, it could be a good diversification strategy. Many of us have seen numerous cases it can easily cross the line into spam.
Sites that I and others have described often have no trace (or little) saying who is behind the site, who is responsible for the information, with really questionable tactics about what they do with your information and why the collect it in the first place.

They also often have almost identical content as their other 'sites' - just repackaged. Strategy for the company? Yes...but I think it can be easily argued that it's not useful to the user at all, and it has done nothing to build trust, transparency or display honesty with it's/their users.

[reseller]

By now the issue of Multiple Domains Crowding spam has been entirely exposed to Google and interested Googlers.

Together with the issue of Domain Clustering (several results from the same domain), Multiple Domain Crowding spam is killing Google Top 10 search results on first page of Google's SERPs.

<snip>

[edited by: goodroi at 3:38 pm (utc) on Jul 18, 2013]
[edit reason] Let's not forget the forum charter [/edit]

[Bones]

Relevant thread from a few months ago, with some interesting views on the subject:
[webmasterworld.com...]

[atlrus]

By now the issue of Multiple Domains Crowding spam has been entirely exposed to Google and interested Googlers.

Together with the issue of Domain Clustering (several results from the same domain), Multiple Domain Crowding spam is killing Google Top 10 search results on first page of Google's SERPs.

<snip>

Sorry, but this all sounds like sour grapes to me.

The goal of the results is to return 10 useful websites, related to the query. Ownership is irrelevant.

If, let's say 3 websites are owned by the same company and they rank on first page, they are still expected to offer similar content. After all, if you search for "widget", you expect Google to return 10 results for widget, correct? Who cares if 3 of them are owned by the same company, except their competitors, which is where the sour grapes come.

In some rare cases this may not be beneficial to the user, but overall not as big of a deal as you make it sound to be.

[edited by: goodroi at 3:38 pm (utc) on Jul 18, 2013]
[edit reason] Let's not forget the forum charter [/edit]

[Roxster]

I could also argue that I own one in the top 10 in the SERPS, my affiliates tend to outrank me with mutple domain spam. People think I OWN these, but I have acouple affiliates that are good at what they do, and the link pointing to me is hidden in javascript or some other mthod. It looks like I am the culprit. It's tough when the affiliate abuses other companies trademarks too.

[besnette]

"The goal of the results is to return 10 useful websites, related to the query. Ownership is irrelevant. "

it's usually not useful or different - at least from what I have seen, it's often all the same thing - a page with an address or some benign piece of information, surrounded by 12 different monetezation opportunities using stock photos...a site that has made efforts to be anonymous or to conceal who they actually are - ...that, to me isn't useful at all to see dominate the serps.

If each site is useful and **different** in it's own right, that's another story....

A dead giveaway for me for someone trying to trick their users into a lead, form fill, or ad click is that the 'contact us' page doesn't say anything about who is being contacted, and there is almost no hint on the rest of the site as to who is behind it. If a company or person can't even 'vouch' for their own content by putting a name, name of a company, an editor, or publisher on the site (obviously) - or if they go to lengths to hide who the parent company is...then something isn't right with the intent of the website and company.

[atlrus]

it's usually not useful or different - at least from what I have seen, it's often all the same thing - a page with an address or some benign piece of information, surrounded by 12 different monetezation opportunities using stock photos...a site that has made efforts to be anonymous or to conceal who they actually are - ...that, to me isn't useful at all to see dominate the serps.

If each site is useful and **different** in it's own right, that's another story....

You are forgetting that those websites are there because Google thinks they are the best match, not because they are owned by the same company.

Just because you removed 3 websites, because they belong to the same company, it doesn't mean that whatever replaces them will be any better.

Again, this is nothing more than OP and sour grapes.

Don't know when this forum became so weird. This is a forum about Google SEO, not about "how to help Google improve user experience". We are all aiming at ranking as many websites as possible as high as possible. These days it's nothing but a bunch of people coming here whining about what Google should do, instead of (the aim of this forum) - what you should do to rank higher on Google.

P.S. I don't know who edited the title of the thread, but owning multiple websites is not spam (smart or dumb). I would think of all places WW would know the difference between owning multiple websites and unsolicited email... And Google's Webspam Team is not even fighting against it, since it's not against any of Google's T&C.

[johnhh]

but owning multiple websites is not spam

with respect it is when you get brandname.com . brandname.in. brandname.co.uk,brandname.au, brandname.anyTLD

[JS_Harris]

By having many sites try to rank for any given keyword you increase your chance of landing top billing and mitigate your risk of a Google change taking out your "only" site. It's a good tactic in a crazy and ever changing Google algorithm, unfortunately. It makes sense, the reasoning to do it is sound and with no sign of Google "tremors" slowing down at all it's the smart thing to do as a webmaster moving forward.

When will it be safe to focus on one site exclusively again? I don't know, perhaps when Google stops making 2-3 changes per day. Can you imagine watching a football game if the field and rules changed 500 times a season and the teams are not informed?

[EditorialGuy]

with respect it is when you get brandname.com . brandname.in. brandname.co.uk,brandname.au, brandname.anyTLD

I don't think it's unreasonable for an Amazon, a TripAdvisor, or a Cnet to have local TLDs.

I do think it's unreasonable for Google to list eight or ten localized versions of the same page on a SERP for "widgets" or "widgetville."

[spreporter]

@EditorialGuy I agree, the top results, for the above mentioned travel/review website as an example, are becoming just over the top with their .com TLD listed as well with their .fr .de., or .co.uk etc..in local google's like .fr,.de,.co.uk and so on. Plus lets say if you search for just "widgetville" you will get the many "widgetville *widgets - keyword" crowding the top 10 results from the above domain. And finally I wonder if the end user clicks on those results seeing them everyday overcrowding all over the place. IMHO is becoming ridiculous.

[edited by: spreporter at 6:51 am (utc) on Jul 18, 2013]

[spreporter]

@reseler there is nothing to be done about "owners of many domains" everyone can register domains using A,B, or C company name (and BTW how about the thousands of offshore phantom companies gaming in the stock exchange?)

[besnette]

If a website or company puts out a site, 2nd site, 3rd...100th site...and won't claim responsibility for the content..and can't vouch for it...then why should we expect google act differently by giving it a pass to rank well?

Yes, this forum is about what you should do to rank well - and I'd like to believe that we're all (or most of us) are here to try to rank well by putting out decent sites and information that we are proud of. We've been told time and time again that quality, unique, interesting content is the most important factor...never have we been told to buy dozens if not hundreds of domains to try to clutter the results with anonymously-backed information.

That is what THIS thread within this forum is about...and when sites like that rank well, others don't - so it is completely relevant to this forum.

EditorialGuy, you say it well..8-10 localized versions of the same thing for 'widgets' - not reasonable. Personally, I don't want to see it or waste time trying to figure it out, and who is behind each result.