Does Google Spam lead to Adwords Customers?

[seoskunk]

I often thought about why Google tolerate spam links (they have the ability not to), like it or not Google are a clever organisation. I think they allow spam links to push sites to the top because they know those webmasters are investing in their product. Once at the top they can enjoy the benefits of good traffic and see the power of Google, I am betting when they are eventually penalised their business is so dependent on Google that they simple must take up adwords. I think Google promotes spam links as a gateway to adwords.

[goodroi]

We are smart people and we already know that Google can't stop all spam links. A smart SEO can manipulate the search rankings so that it is too hard for Google to remove the spam site without inflicting too much damage on the rankings of innocent & naive webmasters. Let's be honest about Google's spam fighting ability. Google is not all powerful or perfect. When creating an algorithm that has to handle trillions of webpages there will always be opportunities for an above average SEO to exploit weaknesses in the algo.

Ok, so getting back to the general premise... no I do not think Google intentionally allows spam to gain adwords customers.

When properly managed in the right situation, an adwords campaign can be very profitable. You can spend a $1 and make $2 profit. This is why Adwords has been going strong for over 17 years. It isn't a scam. It is a viable way for businesses to make money online. Of course it is not a guarantee success, and has flaws, and any marketer can make mistakes. Let's also remember that Adwords is much more predictable than SEO. This another reason why many companies do PPC in addition to SEO. A third reason for businesses to do adwords is that Google has been pushing spam below the fold, actually they have been pushing all organic results (spam & non-spam) below the fold with many SERPs showing 4 adwords on top and a bunch of other stuff on top of organic results. Even if Google hadn't pushed organic results below the fold, the internet has been maturing and more corporations have organic sites ranking. Spam sites are not really impacting these corporate sites.

Theoretically, I can see how an onslaught of spam sites could make some companies join adwords but in reality I do not think this is likely scenario. Companies are joining or already joined adwords because it is predictable and can be very profitable plus a bunch of other business reasons.

If Google wanted more money, all they need to do is place more adwords on top of organic results instead of having to perform a spamming conspiracy which could backfire and ruin the quality of their search results. So using Occam's Razor I'm going to have to disagree with seoskunk's personal opinion on this.

[seoskunk]

We are smart people and we already know that Google can't stop all spam links

Hang on a minute, this is now a billion dollar organisation, they can't identify a site that let's say is hacking links in old wordpress installations or cross site scripting. No I think they can do that just fine, yet they allow and promote these links. Why because when people finally get penalised they turn to adwords at least for a while. I think part of adwords is as churn and burn as BH sites themselves. But its bottom dollar margin for Google, now part of the income so they can't get rid of it.

When creating an algorithm that has to handle trillions of webpages there will always be opportunities for an above average SEO to exploit weaknesses in the algo.

I am not buying this, I can personally think how Google can rid themselves of spam links, so I am damn sure they can do it with their brains. Therefore my conclusion is its deliberately allowed.

When properly managed in the right situation, an adwords campaign can be very profitable. You can spend a $1 and make $2 profit. This is why Adwords has been going strong for over 17 years

You must be a genius to get a 50% conversion rate on adwords - the average is 1.7%.

If Google wanted more money, all they need to do is place more adwords on top of organic results instead of having to perform a spamming conspiracy which could backfire and ruin the quality of their search results.

Are you honestly going to tell me there organic results on any commercial phrase offer quality? As for placing more ads, I think even Google appreciate there is a balance between ads and the backfill that was once organic search results.

[goodroi]

Simply because an organization makes a billion dollars does not mean they are omnipotent. The bigger something becomes the more chances there are for cracks that can be exploited to form. It just takes one weakness for spam to leak in. Can Google do more to fight spam? Probably, but ask someone who has tried to code a better solution and they will tell you that at a certain point you encounter diminishing returns.

Simply because you think you know the answer to solving every single spam link does not mean you are correct. There are often downsides to spam fighting solutions and other unintended consequences. For example let's say you devalue all sidebar links because wordpress hackers often hide spam links in the sidebar ... well what about innocent sites that naively only put their links in the sidebar. That theoretical spam solution would have a big negative impact on many innocent websites.

Conversion rate is not the same as profit margin. Also because I said something can or may happen does not mean it will happen. Every site, campaign, keyword, etc is different. Which is why I said "When properly managed in the right situation, an adwords campaign can be very profitable" If we want to use your 1.7% number, that is still profitable. 1.7% of billions is alot of money.

I think you might be letting your personal frustration with Google distract you from looking at the situation from a different perspective. We are all entitled to our own personal opinions but that doesn't guarantee that our personal opinions are correct.

[buckworks]

You must be a genius to get a 50% conversion rate on adwords

That isn't what he said.

- the average is 1.7%.

Just wondering, where's that stat from? Obviously if it's an average some accounts will do better and some will do worse than that. There is profit to be made at both ends if you get the right things in balance.

[NickMNS]

I am not buying this, I can personally think how Google can rid themselves of spam links, so I am damn sure they can do it with their brains. Therefore my conclusion is its deliberately allowed.

Fighting spam is a pure expense, that is it does not provide any return to Google. Some spam fighting is likely required for good house keeping. But why would they bother to do more than the minimum that meets the user's expectation of quality. Conversely, creating algorithm to find and promote high quality and highly desirable sites provides value and a return. So it is not that Google can't do more to fight spam, it is that simply pushing quality sites to the top provides a much better return on investment. And, at scale, even small false positives will be noticeable, so some house cleaning is required.

I don't see how targeting spammers to sell your product can be a sound business strategy. It would be like a shop owner marketing to shop lifters so that they be caught stealing and them forcing them to pay for the product.

[FranticFish]

For a business that supposedly doesn't care about spam, Google has done a great deal in my experience.

Here's a list of linking strategies that I have personally seen outlawed over 15 years (by 'personally' I mean that at one point I have either used them and ranked or worked with someone who has used them and ranked).

1) SEO directories
2) Link exchange pages / directories
3) Text link ads
4) Fake Blog Link Farms
5) Blogrolls / Run of Site Links / Footer Links
6) Guestbook posting, Forum / Blog Comment posting (and Member Profile creation)
7) Giveaway widget with link

Any one of these techniques was at one time a sure fire way to rank. That is no longer the case. I am sure other members with more experience could add to the list.

I joined this forum to start learning SEO properly when it became apparent to me that Google was concerned about closing loopholes in its algorithm and that churn 'n' burn wasn't what I wanted to pursue.

Google are not perfect. But spam these days is a lot more sophisticated than it used to be.