Forum Moderators: open
A broadly accepted definition of spam would be any web page that falls outside Google's published guidelines. A more tangible definition of spam would be any page that contains items that are designed to appear more relevant to a search engine algorithm that would not be considered more relevant to a human editor.
Most of us know why spam sites exist. It is safe to summise that the primary motivation is monetary. Either through affiliate relationships, or self-deployed expansion, spam is used to attract more usership and ultimately greater financial rewards for the spammer.
It is clear that the above stated goal of spammers can only be successful achieved if enough users are clicking, buying or taking some relevant action which produces a profitable action for the spammer. Any successful affiliate knows that in order to entice a user to perform the required action, an appropriate target sponsor must satisfy the following three properties
The above three properties all surely must constitute worthy aims for webmasters, particularly those who do generate income from their sites, to aspire to. There is of course some content that whilst of high quality and relevance, would be difficult to market successfully as commercial content due to standards of the surrounding publishing community (such as university research), or the common-good responsibilities of the publisher (such as government sites), or due simply to insufficient interest amongst users.
Consider a site that does not possess all of the above three properties and does not fall under the definition of spam above. Most SEOs would know that in order for such sites to be highly ranked in Google, these sites would need sufficient respect through links from other sites. Apart from links of a commercial nature (such as through Yahoo's or other paid listings), these links would typically come from other sites who believes the linked site contains relevant free information useful to the linking site's audience.
The vast majority of free information on the Internet is not subject to community or commercial standards, comes from a mixture of personal experience or opinion, or the public domain, or is sydnicated content or content that has been "adapted" from other copyright content. The first two sources whilst sometimes useful or at least "entertaining", yield content that is often prone to error, heresay, obsoloteness, rumor or simply rewords widely available content. The use of the third source implies duplication of non-unique content and the fourth suggests illegal activity. This information is subject to no commercial, and often no legal standard having been offered for free with no guarantees to users. Anybody who has used one of the popular file-sharing systems on the Internet knows very well that relying on the content traded through these systems is prone to major reliability, security and legal problems.
How is this free, unregulated content superior to highly successful commercial content? Is the goal of search engines to be a sort of unregulated Kazaa of the web?
In summary, below is a collection of benefits to the user and the Internet community as a whole of "spam sites" as compared to free content not subject to community standards.
I think webmasters who complain about spam need to take a cold, hard look at the content they offer on their websites and evaluate how their content and/or their clients' content compares in terms of benefits to the Internet community as a whole against that of commercially successful sites who are the destination of many affiliate sites the call spam.
If a spammer can direct a user more quickly to a quality commercial site than a site offering less-than-quality content, which site is providing the greater service to the user community?
[edited by: Bottler at 12:10 am (utc) on June 4, 2003]
Are you saying that eBay, CNN, IRS & Amazon should not be ranked highly for the untargeted, blanket terms you listed? You know of some affiliate target sites that are more relevant for these blanket terms?
No. I'm saying they don't optimize because they don't need to optimize. Yet they are still very important sites for users that should be ranked highly for many terms for which they're not optimized. Affiliate sites can provide the missing links.
Where is Amazon for "fantasy books for sale", "online book sale". Where is Ebay for "toy auctions", "computer auctions", "book auctions"? Where is the IRS for "new tax laws"? If these sites bothered to optimize their sites for these keywords, they would easily rank highly.
Either a site offers relevant content or it doesn't
Do a search for "cars" on Google. Then do a search for "autos". Compare the results. Are these entirely different searches? Are the sites listed on the two different SERPs irrelevant to each other?
To the skeptics - if Google is not acquired by an independent standards body and does eventually go public - remember this post after the founders sell out of their shares when Google starts offering PR up for rent (if it doesn't happen sooner) ;)
I just did a search and the 3rd item was a site that offered no content except a bunch of links to search results.
You can try to defend SOME spam. But for stuff like this, there is no defense. It's not relevant for any search and it provides no value whatsoever to the visitor. It appears to be just a scheme to get traffic for the casino banner at its top.
And a nice little earner if those search results happen to be from a PPC engine (Espotting say).
This technique is becoming rampant.
This technique is becoming rampant.
I agree, and as a searcher I am finding it intruding more and more on my day to day searches. One thing I am definitely NOT looking for when I search a search engine is...another search engine! Usually with pay per click results from Espotting, or just affiliate links.
My 'back button finger' is getting very tired of these sites. The main reason these sites irritate me is because there are lots of very good sites on a similar format, where they've actually got visitor input/reviews etc which I find very useful, especially for e-commerce searches. But now small affiliate-y search engines are building serps pages in an optimised fashion, and using 'recent/similar searches' links to get the pages indexed.
I for one would be happy to see other SE results excluded from searches at a particular engine. Sure, index the home page of other engines, but the SERPS? I don't want to see them. The pages don't have any content - they are just links to other people's content. You could get trapped forever in a serp that leads to a serp to a serp...ad infinitum...
Some webmasters get all hot and bothered by spam but in my experience very few of them have a genuine complaint about the content of the site they accuse. Mostly it's just a temper tantrum at someone else beating them en the SERPS.
We see this kind of disinformation on WW again and again. Do any of the spam defenders seriously believe it?
I don't get "hot and bothered" by spam, but I dislike it a great deal, even when my pages rank #1 for a competitive search term without resorting to spam techniques. Why do I dislike spam? Two reasons:
1) I'm not just a Web publisher; I'm also a Web user. If I want to visit the Web site of the Hotel Whatsit in Shelbyville, I find it annoying to dig through 20 or 30 boilerplate affiliate pages before reaching the Hotel Whatsit's page.
2) If the "aggressive SEO" crowd are permitted to take over the Web the way spammers have taken over e-mail marketing, all of us will be hurt. Users have a limited amount of patience, and those of us who are capable of thinking more than three weeks ahead need to be on the side of Google--not on the side of spam artists who'll find another way to make a quick buck after they've killed the golden goose.
A very good point.
I for one am forced to ruthlessly delete emails, often without a second glance that might be for products or services I'm interested in, but email spammers spoilt the party. It's now extremely difficult to send out any volume of email without worrying about spam, and with less chance of returns because of spammers who've given commercial email an entirely negative image with the public.
>>Some webmasters get all hot and bothered by spam but in my experience very few of them have a genuine complaint about the content of the site they accuse. Mostly it's just a temper tantrum at someone else beating them en the SERPS.
There is naturally a lot of this on webmasterworld, but for people like europeforvisitors and myself, we wouldn't bother to post a message about it, annoyed though we may be. IMO webmasters who point the finger becase they can't beat a spam site in the serps are a minority who have found something to blame for their lack of success, but I think the general (and often unvoiced) opinion is that spam is harmful to everyone.
Spam is like those scratch cards you get sent the whole time where you always win, and they want you to phone a premium rate number to claim your 'prize' (like a pen, or a piece of plastic or something). This kind of thing is forced upon me. Spam in the serps is like getting one of those cards when you really wanted a lottery ticket.
Cutts readily admits that it's possible to find pages in the current index that use tactics Google does not like, such as hidden text and hidden links. It's hoped that the new filters will help better eliminate this, in the future. However, Cutts added that the presence of such pages doesn't necessarily translate into bad relevancy."For a long time, these things have been annoying webmasters rather than users," Cutts said. "Scoring already takes care of this stuff, but we have seen posts like, 'Why isn't Google handling this'."
It's good to know that Google is not too concerned about some of the more self-interested complaints of webmasters and is instead focusing rigidly (and correctly) on the quality of experience of their users. It would be fascinating to know which creates more negative user feedback
I once went to the Whatsit Hotel in Shelbyville. Bloody nightmare!
Upon approaching the entrance I was accosted by a strange looking lady with VERY big glasses and a slanting gait. She informed me that the main entrance was shut and would I mind waiting while she got me a pass card and directions for their newly built side door.
While I was waiting for the lady to return, a gnome popped out of the undergrowth, flashed me and offered me a new pair of glasses that he insisted would help me find my way around better. I decided to kill the gnome; after killing him for the 10th time I decided that it might just be better to accept his gift. I put on the glasses - WOW - my senses were suddenly assaulted by a brand new world of flashing lights, sound and colour. In panic I pulled at the glasses but they were stuck tight - I just couldn't get them off.
Just then the lady returned; she saw my predicament and assured me there was a witch doctor in town who would be able to remove them for me, but he wasn't open until tomorrow. She handed me my pass card and directions.
I set off and promptly bumped into a large door. I tried to move around the door but it just stayed there - wherever I moved it moved. There was no choice but to enter. Inside was a plush array of gaming tables, attended by topless girls; a bald man, with the same big glasses as the entrance lady seemed to be running the show. I ran through the building as fast as possible, but those glasses made it very difficult to see properly. I finally got to the exit, but I was forced to have one go of the fruit machine before I could open the exit door. Actually I won, but unless I divulged all my personal details I was unable to collect my winnings.
Relieved, I stood outside of the casino and saw the side entrance door to the hotel. (Although I noticed I had developed a strange itch in my nether regions and an irritating little cough). I tried to open the hotel door, but it was locked. Looking hard I noticed a dial; I realised I needed to input the code from the pass card the entrance lady had given me.
Inside the hotel, I noticed a sign over reception - it read:
"If you like us tell others, if you don't like us tell others".
Tired and hungry, I got to my room. There was a menu on the dressing table. I had a look what was for dinner.
You guessed it - SPAM!
You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wonderous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.
That’s the sign post up ahead – your next stop, the Twilight Zone. Do-di-do-do do-di-do-do do-di-doooww.....
It's good to know that Google is not too concerned about some of the more self-interested complaints of webmasters and is instead focusing rigidly (and correctly) on the quality of experience of their users.
The article does not say that "Google is not too concerned" about hidden text and other shady techniques. On the contrary: The article says, "It's hoped that the new filters will help better eliminate this in the future."
It would be fascinating to know which creates more negative user feedback: efficient affiliate links to relevant, quality commercial sites OR low-value webmaster pseudo-content.
That statement is an example of the "straw man" defense, because you've neglected to mention two other (and more desirable) choices: relevant, quality commercial sites themselves, and high-value content on third-party Web sites.
The majority of affiliate-site pages clutter up SERPS without supplying added value. Perhaps a new affiliate model is needed: one where affiliates compete on price (as stores and mail-order businesses do in the bricks-and-mortar world). Price competition would provide a greater justification for all those cookie-cutter affiliate pages in Google.
For example, let's suppose this PR rental option was available in early 2001. At this time SERPs for the search term "anthrax" would have been dominated by University and purely informational sites because it was not a very commercially valuable term at that time. As user moods shifted in late 2001, more interest was created for buying gas masks and vaccination. At this time, commercial sites would have dominated as conversion rates (and users' desire to buy personal protection) increased. Many examples like this exist.
Your example is probably more revealing than you intended. Gas masks provide no protection against anthrax, and you can't buy an anthrax vaccine. Experts agree that taking unnecessary antibiotics is worse than doing nothing. Sites that promote phony "personal protection" would be clearly deceptive and preying on the fears of scared and ill-informed public. University sites, on the other hand, would provide the kind of high-quality objective information that people need in order to make sane decisions. Had G auctioned off PR, the University departments wouldn't have had money to buy it--the commercial sharpers would have. It would have shifted people away from getting real information and towards the kind of fear-mongering deception that is all too common in the wake of events like the anthrax releases.
efficient affiliate links to relevant, quality commercial sites
OR
low-value webmaster pseudo-content.
You've given two examples that are at the extreme ends of the scale. Google are not making, and will never have to make, a choice between those two extremes.
My general experience of affiliate sites as a Google user is unfortunately not "efficient...links to...quality...sites" but in fact the reverse. Links that are not entirely relevant trying to get clicks at any cost, regardless of whether the target site is of good quality.
The problem is affiliate sites that are driven by money alone. If Bob's dodgy widget store pays more commission than Jim's quality widget store then affiliates will go for the former, regardless of quality. Webmaster with little or no financial interest will only be biased by personal opinion, which makes for a much more interesting site that one that is dictated by economics.
IMO to say that "Free content is usually not quality content" is meaningless, because it is a generalisation about a amazingly diverse range of websites.
One of the best things about the web is that enthusiasts of any subject can put up (free) information about their interests. To say that everyone who does this makes a poor quality site, but affiliates who are trying to make a living off something they are not really interested in makes no sense at all to me.
Tired and hungry, I got to my room. There was a menu on the dressing table. I had a look what was for dinner. You guessed it - SPAM!
Real sorry to hear about your trip. Yeah I visited the Whatsit once too. You should consider yourself lucky they didn't give you the menu with eight pages full of staple mediterranean food that the hotel owner "mostly enjoyed except for the stringy bits" on his last visit to his former college roommate who now lives in Spain, complete with twelve five line reviews of each meal from his most vocal buddies at the local watch band collecting club, coupled with pictures of some of the meals he printed off from his Microsoft clip art collection, and on the back page, a set of ten phone numbers where you can find fantastic information about backpacker's tips on how to not squash your fruit on long train journeys, a list of the capital cities of all the countries in the world conveniently ordered by the number of letters in their name, and guides on how to paint your kite to fool the seagulls into flying in a variety of fun patterns in the sky. Tipping is not required of course, but if you happened to need a new gyroscope, he can recommend a suitable place.
;)
(back in a few hours ...)
[edited by: Bottler at 3:42 pm (utc) on June 5, 2003]
No. I'm saying they don't optimize because they don't need to optimize. Yet they are still very important sites for users that should be ranked highly for many terms for which they're not optimized. Affiliate sites can provide the missing links.
Do you see the flaw in your logic? Sites that do not need to optimize, do not need affiliate sites either.
You seem to be arguing a myopic view based upon the premise that just one affiliate site driving traffic to a supposedly relevant target site justifies the use of spammy techniques that many affiliate sites use. However, where there is one, there is almost always many. You have failed to address how having multiple affiliate sites occupying the top 10-20 SERP results for a given query (and all pointing to the same target) is in any way beneficial to the end user.
merlin30, that was excellent...
If you can get to the top by whatever means, then good luck to you ;)
As a user, if the volume of spam for a search is too high, that's the search engine's problem, because I will take my query elsewhere. As a webmaster, if spam beats me in the results, that's my problem and I will have to do more to beat them, or my visitors will go elsewhere.
As a user, if the volume of spam for a search is too high, that's the search engine's problem, because I will take my query elsewhere.
Yes, and that's why Google isn't likely to buy into the "In support of spam" philosophy that has been espoused in this thread.
The article does not say that "Google is not too concerned" about hidden text and other shady techniques. On the contrary: The article says, "It's hoped that the new filters will help better eliminate this in the future."
I posted the words there for all to see and assess for themselves.
... you've neglected to mention two other (and more desirable) choices: relevant, quality commercial sites themselves, and high-value content on third-party Web sites.
Certainly. Both are superior to the two options I mentioned. My initial point in this thread, and point of this comparison was that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
It would have shifted people away from getting real information and towards the kind of fear-mongering deception that is all too common in the wake of events like the anthrax releases.
I doubt the truth of your previous statements. In any case, a search engine's role is not to protect users from themselves. Smoking is bad for your health but it's not the search engine's role to penalize smoking sites.
Links that are not entirely relevant trying to get clicks at any cost, regardless of whether the target site is of good quality.
I already acknowledged this as a problem and proposed a solution. Now the next step is acknowledge that low value, webmaster pseudo-content is a much bigger problem.
Do you see the flaw in your logic? Sites that do not need to optimize, do not need affiliate sites either.
You have failed to address how having multiple affiliate sites occupying the top 10-20 SERP results for a given query (and all pointing to the same target) is in any way beneficial to the end user.
In general, it's not. But it's possible only 9-19 of them should be removed from the results. If Google adopted an enlightened stand towards spam, I am confident it could invent a filter for this situation.
As a webmaster, if spam beats me in the results, that's my problem and I will have to do more to beat them, or my visitors will go elsewhere.
I will consider that an acknowledgement of the effectiveness and relevance of a lot of spam :)
I think I've more than made my point now. Someone come up with a new argument that contradicts the core issues I am highlighting and I'll be all ears. Cheers ;)
Now the next step is acknowledge that low value, webmaster pseudo-content is a much bigger problem.
What exactly do you mean by "low value, webmaster pseudo-content"? Perhaps you're referring to filler "content" that affiliate sites use to pad out their sites? I haven't seen any evidence that such content is nearly the problem that cookie-cutter affiliate pages are. And in any case, such content is easily trumped by real content (e.g., editorial material on "content sites" or professionally written copy on corporate sites).
I have seen for myself that successful affiliate programs bring in much greater, more stable revenues for very large Internet companies than search engine marketing does.
Say that to Google, and they're likely to reply "So what?" It isn't Google's job to help merchants or Webmasters earn money with affiliate programs. Google's mission is to serve users.
Side note: In the beginning, affiliate programs were a type of advertising on content sites. They weren't conceived as get-rich-quick schemes for spammers. I think we're going to see affiliate programs move back to that model as search engines become more successful at combatting spam.
If Google adopted an enlightened stand towards spam, I am confident it could invent a filter for this situation.
If Google adopted what you call an "enlightened stand towards spam," it would go the way of AltaVista.
I really can't agree with this. The average spammer knows what they are doing, and as I think someone implied earlier in this thread, they generally need to operate on a large scale in order to be profitable. Or even ifthey don't need to, they will want to anyway in order to generate more profit.
So they will have a large number of sites and therefore have a much larger impact. They will probably also be better at SEO, and therefore more dominant in the SERPs than individuals making 'low value' content of the type you describe in your first post.
So I don't see how the 'free' sites constitute "a much bigger problem".
Also, rereading the thread, the type of content you seem to be talking about "from a mixture of personal experience or opinion" and of unreliable quality... You could almost be describing blogs, which Google are already planning to filter out of the main results.
Lets hope so!
I could own both sites, or you may own 1
Both targeting the same product, assuming the sites are not exact copies. One might be spamming the other not etc etc
So what can google do? limit search results, or product queries?
The same could be said for any product, regardless if affiliate or not.
Renting PR will not work... because the number of people who tell me PR does not influence rankings.....
Besides people "rent PR" already
Someone come up with a new argument that contradicts the core issues I am highlighting and I'll be all ears.
Um, er der, obviously. Google does not and should not deal with sometimeses. Again,it comes back to what is the premise under which Google should construct its Algorithms? The why, and why alone, of searching is the "core issue", not any specific case. You are arguing vague points about specific situations that are not the norm, erroneously extrapolating and and saying "there you go, Google has it ALL wrong". Gotta disagree whole heartedly. Any solution that takes us from 65% right to 35% right is wrong IMHO.
You yourself agree that:
You have failed to address how having multiple affiliate sites occupying the top 10-20 SERP results for a given query (and all pointing to the same target) is in any way beneficial to the end user.In general, it's not. But it's possible only 9-19 of them should be removed from the results.
If Google adopted an enlightened stand towards spam, I am confident it could invent a filter for this situation.
So do you like filters or not? Or do you just pick and choose? What you suggest is extremely Processor intensive, and not even sure to solve the "core issue" of, not spam, but what is relevancy.
You want someone to raise concerns about the "core issues" you are highlighting, wel, i think I have. The problem with your "core issues" is that they start in the wrong place.Google has its eyes on squarely on the philosophical question of, not what is spam, but what is relevancy. And it is here that your argument falls down. Your "core issue", as a person who runs your own business, is "how do i make more money out of Search Engines". Google's core concern is "How do we create a relevant index so that we have the maximum market share". ALL search engines ask this question, because this is where their own commercial value lies. Total punters == market share == potential for profit. Your concerns aren'ty theirs, and their's are not yours. What you need to find is common ground.
What exactly do you mean by "low value, webmaster pseudo-content"?
A perfect example of this is blogs. Here we have a collective conscious with few aggregate original ideas espousing mostly personal opinion distributed over tens of thousands of sites and domains. Sure, a few blogs are entertaining but the majority of bloggers rehash what everybody else is talking about and puts their own little take on it. I think blogging is a fantastic idea for organically identifying insightful, interesting new media opportunities but it is an absolute blight on the "reputation by link structure" analysis that is the foundation of most successful search engines.
You could almost be describing blogs, which Google are already planning to filter out of the main results.
Just noted your post then. Yes blogs are a fine example of low value pseudo-content but it by no means ends there. Show me a homegrown webmaster site claiming to have unique content, and I will, with high probability, be able to show you at least hundred that distribute essentially the same knowledge. I think it is reasonable to postulate that 80% of search queries could be effectively answered by 1% of the available sites.
I read a research paper recently (possibly by someone associated with Google) showing that the linking structure of the web can be very accurately modeled by assuming with some high probability that webmasters merely duplicate the outgoing links of some other site. That is pretty convincing evidence of mass scale lack of originality. If anybody wants the reference I can dig it up.
Show me a homegrown webmaster site claiming to have unique content, and I will, with high probability, be able to show you at least hundred that distribute essentially the same knowledge.
Sounds like a fair challenge. Check the site in my profile. It's about as homegrown as you can get. It's around 50 MB of content that you will not find anywhere else on the web. All produced by amateurs and highly valued by the industry.
You're just 30 seconds away from the absolute hottest Google Duplicate Content Detection action on the net. Just select your username and get ready for instant access!
Username : __________
Password : __________
[ ] Three day trial membership for $4.95
[x] Monthly recurring membership for $29.95 p.m
>> Click Here to Continue <<
I can't touch your site Dave. There's obviously a lot of devotion to what you do there. Earning a dollar for your dedication can't be so bad though. Hope they give you tons of free gear for your efforts.
There's obviously a lot of devotion to what you do there. Earning a dollar for your dedication can't be so bad though.
I find this quite interesting, indirectly you seem to admit that BigDave's site has unique content (I cannot access it, btw). by "Earning a dollar" the site would not be an "homegrown" one any more, to make your statement to be right?
btw, I think I too have "unique content". My earning is more of intellectual character.
I agree bull. The implication seems to be that earning money from the site would in some way validate it's worth, or that although the content is 'free' the webmaster is still using it as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
