Google Launching Payday Loan Algorithm 3.0 Targeting Spammy Queries

[Mentat]

---

System: The following 15 messages were cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4676767.htm [webmasterworld.com] by aakk9999 - 5:06 pm on Jun 12, 2014 (gmt 0)

---

Google Launching Payday Loan Algorithm 3.0 Targeting Spammy Queries This Week

Didn’t Google just update the PayDay Loan algorithm a couple weeks ago? Yes, version 2.0 was launched a couple weeks ago.

Matt Cutts explained that this goes after different signals. The 2.0 version targeted spammy sites, whereas version 3.0 targets spammy queries.

Again, this is launching as soon as tomorrow and will look specifically spammy queries, such as terms like [payday loans], [casinos], [viagra] and other forms of highly spammy queries.

Matt did not clarify exactly what he means by spammy sites versus spammy queries, we will try to get more concrete details on this soon.

[searchengineland.com...]

[crobb305]

so much for targeting "spam" on spammy queries. I see things pages such as Craigslist ads showing on queries such as bad credit loans (who would lead a consumer to get a loan on Craigslist?). Also see a good bit of domain crowding.

They make things worse each time. There were actually some good websites ranking a few years ago.

[iphone6]

Of course they need to update their algorithm. It is not very well suited for certain line of business. As every line of business is different from another they need a algoritm for each and one of the worlds entire line of business ... and that is alot

[crobb305]

so much for targeting "spam" on spammy queries. I see things pages such as Craigslist ads showing on queries such as bad credit loans would lead a consumer to get a loan on Craigslist?). Also see a good bit of domain crowding.

Now I see 7 pages from the same domain showing on page 2/3 for bad credit loans. This, in addition to several yellowpages listings and craigslist.

I am using this query as a test phrase (because it is a highly-sought query known for spam). The results are absolutely pathetic. Results were better prior to the most recent "Spam Algorithm 3" update.

[CaptainSalad2]

I think many posters understandably misunderstand the purpose of spam updates! It's not to take down less relevant sites with crap content, it's to take down sites that have 'spammed' google by building false positives to be ranked higher!

Say you have

A) a brand new site with the most useful information, a great user friendly experience but they paid for a link building service!

B) a old site outdated site, bad user experience, no mobile version and poorly written content, but has a natural back link profile!

Site A is the spammy site according to googles mindset! It's not about producing better results, it's about stopping a few webmasters gaming the system at all cost, even if they produce far superior websites and content it's still spam if you push the site up the SERPS unnaturally!

[aristotle]

A) a brand new site with the most useful information, a great user friendly experience but they paid for a link building service!

But how does Google's algorithm know that a competitor didn't pay for that service.

On the other hand, the "spammy queries" part of the algorithm may be quicker to condemn and harsher in its judgements.

[EditorialGuy]

Site A is the spammy site according to googles mindset!

That depends on what you mean by "link building service." Do you mean the site owner purchased links? If so, then Site A is a spammy site.

Who's hurt if Site A loses its rankings? Nobody but the owners, because searchers will continue to have plenty of other results to choose from.

[CaptainSalad2]

That depends on what you mean by "link building service." Do you mean the site owner purchased links? If so, then Site A is a spammy site.

Are you suggesting PAYING someone to build links for ranking purposes is okay? Is buying/exchanging links yourself any different to paying someone to buy/exchange links on your behalf?

Who's hurt if Site A loses its rankings? Nobody but the owners, because searchers will continue to have plenty of other results to choose from.

In our scenario site A has a superior user experience and more up-to-data (correct) information than the other top results, in which case id argue the user loses, the webmaster loses and google loses by not having the most relevant, user friendly site first because of the metric the doesn't care about, backlinks... :)

[EditorialGuy]

In our scenario site A has a superior user experience and more up-to-data (correct) information than the other top results)

But that's a hypothetical (one could even say "imaginary") scenario. In the real world, it's more likely that there are any number of sites like site A, and the owners of those sites will benefit from the site A owner's poor judgment.

[jmccormac]

The problem with Google isn't something they can just solve with splattering algorithmic twiddling. The problem lies in the data and how it is processed rather than the queries.

Regards...jmcc