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]
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.
Yes yes either that .... or that I was just trying to be polite ;)
Who am I to judge the originality of a site on backpacking gear? The site looks like a wonderful source of information to me but who am I to judge on its accuracy or originality?
There was no implication. To tell you the truth I had a jolt of guilt that some people work very hard on their sites "just for the love of it". I wanted the guy to be rewarded. I never stated and I don't believe it follows that a site that isn't commercial is necessarily not valuable. But there are a WHOLE lot that aren't.
Sorry Bottler, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. It's just that you seem to think that in general commercial sites are much more valuable than non-commercial sites. This is certainly changing now, but there have been excellent free information sites long before ebay and amazon proved that the internet is also a good place to sell products.
>>To tell you the truth I had a jolt of guilt that some people work very hard on their sites "just for the love of it". I wanted the guy to be rewarded.
No 'pang of guilt' is required. As bull said, his "earning is more of intellectual character.". I find it a little starnge that you don't seem to relate to the idea that making a site can be rewarding enough in itself, without the need for material compensation.
My view is this:
Spam doesn't increase the total amount of eCommerce revenue, it just changes the where the money flows. As the amount of spam increases, the less revenue is available to each individual spammer (the revenue received by the merchant stays the same). Being #1 in search will results will become ever more necessary while tougher Google algorithms will make it ever harder to guarantee #1. In the short term there may be a flight to Adwords, but the bids will be driven up too far to justify the conversion rate of the "banner list affiliate sites". At this point spam will not be able to sustain itself.
That is why I think Google will continue with Adwords and tougher algorithms. It is this strategy that will in the end split the Internet into its non-commercial and commercial interests; I think that is good for (real) business and the searching public.
I think this is also why there is such an outcry about the current update.
As for money - the site costs me money - I provide it as a service to the world at large. I do accept small donations - but generally they come to about 10% of the hosting costs.
It's great that you, and others, put together decent information for free. I would have thought it not unreasonable that the company you host with, which you provide a link for, couldn't provide a small affiliate commission to help you with your fees.
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.
You can click on the site in my profile too. There are 3, count 'em, 3, sites about the subject on the net. Mine does the best, has unique content, and has been put in a number of very good directories, (2 dmoz cats amongst others), because of it, (mostly without me even asking them to do it). It gets about 80 distinct visitors other than bots a day.
(This isn't a promo drop, mods, wouldn't have said "site in profile" except for the presumptuous statement quoted above.)
I'm not sure how important it will be to be #1 in the future. It seems a very simplistic concept - this constant fight to be #1. I imagine by the time there are 10 billion pages, new ways of finding what one really wants will have come to the fore, because spamming would be an even greater burden on the whole system.
Why is this an indictment of the small homegrown site, and not that of thousands of Affiliate and MLM sites?
Darryl.
That is my point. It will become unfeasible to able be guarantee the #1 slot as more pages are added and algorithms become more accurate; low conversion pages rely on huge, free, traffic volumes to make a good return and that means being at the top.
When this happens spammers will be forced to look at what users really want, instead of concentrating on search engine positioning as their business model. Those that do this successfully move on from being internet spammers; those that can't move their snake oil tactics to other areas of commerce.
So "team 1" - Premiership champions of last season - come out for the first game - and start tackling late - putting in the boot after the whistle - and generally flaunting the rules.
"Team 2" - Premiership Woodenspooners of last season - come out for the first game - and it's clear they have been gagging on the rule book for months - they stay back the required distance - no sledging - no high tackles - generally playing to the rules.
So who wins Grasshopper?
: )
The team with more skill at football ;)
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.
The same thing can be said about most Web sites, magazines, newspapers, and other media. How unique is the knowledge about Paris, London, or Rome that's dispensed on Fodors.com, Frommers.com, or other major guidebook sites? They're all going to have roughly the same information (in different words) about the Eiffel Tower, Parliament, St. Peter's Basilica, and the major hotels in each city. That doesn't compromise their usefulness to the reader who needs that knowledge, and it certainly doesn't make them inferior to the vast numbers of hotel affiliate sites that use skimpy boilerplate "destination guide" copy and hotel descriptions.
As for "homegrown" sites, my own European travel site has a great deal of information that isn't readily available at other Web sites. I don't cover everything, and I don't claim to offer better information than the Frommers and Fodors of the world when I write about major tourist capitals, but I can't think of another English-language Web site that offers as much in-depth information as I have for destinations like Monemvasia, Greece or Maratea, Italy. (For that matter, I don't think any Web site--either "homegrown" or commercial--can match the depth and breadth of my Venice coverage.) Granted, I'm a professional writer and editor, and my site is "commercial" to the degree that it earns revenue, but it's still a "homegrown" site.
...a site can be rewarding enough in itself, without the need for material compensation.
It's worth noting that noncommercial Web sites include those that aren't created and maintained as "labors of love." Many are simply online depositories for material that people have created in their daily jobs--e.g., academic papers by professors and grad students, medical articles by physicians, and historical texts compiled by scholars, librarians, or museum curators. The authors of such Web sites earn their compensation indirectly through the salaries or grants that they receive offline.
News and discussion for the advanced web professional
Now I was under the impression that professional meant being paid. Furthermore I read that title as saying that it is for people who make a living from working with web sites.
So please can someone explain how you guys who are building whiter than white, totally non-commercial sites such as Big Dave's excellent example, are actually making a living from these sites?.
Don't forget it's
News and discussion for the advanced web professional
As for money - the site costs me money - I provide it as a service to the world at large. I do accept small donations - but generally they come to about 10% of the hosting costs.
It depends on whose refereeing the game!
IMO "News and discussion for the advanced web professional" is more of a statement of intent than a rigid guideline on what can and can't be discussed. If it wsn't, there should be no posts at all in foo.
The issue being discussed is of interest to professional and non-professional webmasters alike. To dismiss it because it doesn't match a tagline at the top of the page is rather unproductive.
I think many of us here have sites on both sides of the line, and I for one am happy to discuss things from either perspective. The logic that if it's not your job it shouldn't be discussed is rather faulty if you ask me, as a glance at posts in any of the forums here will demonstrate.
I would also add these 2 definitions of the word professional:
Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.
And the noun:
A skilled practitioner; an expert.
Thats a keyword - I'd reckon. I've got a hobby site - and one day I'll update those 2001 stories - and that 2002 'latest report'. But actually - I'm too busy doing 2003 stuff for customers.
Professional - that implies 'for a living' At worst (oldest) useage - potentially means 'doing the right thing, for multiple partners, for money'. Who said this wasn't the 'oldest profession!?!'
Now mercenary - thats totally different. Don't go there.
: )
[edited by: Chris_D at 2:32 pm (utc) on June 6, 2003]
News and discussion for the advanced web professional
I don't see that it's particularly professional to make a sweeping generalization about "homegrown sites" like the one quoted a few times now. Are "advanced web professionals" the only people allowed to respond?
From what I've seen lately some of the "advanced web professionals" got hammered in Dominic and some of the "homegrown sites" came through unscathed.
So please can someone explain how you guys who are building whiter than white, totally non-commercial sites such as Big Dave's excellent example, are actually making a living from these sites?.
To quote pixel_juice, "some of us have sites on both sides of the line." And some of would be "Web professionals" even if our sites were completely nonprofit, thanks to our Web-related day jobs or consulting or freelance work.
In any case, questioning (or defending) the professional credentials of WW's members seems a bit off topic for this thread (which is headed "In support of spam," not "Membership requirements at Webmaster World").
I just ran into this thread while searching for something else and was captivated by it as a fascinating read. Big thanks to all those who participated.
Most of the arguments are as valid today as they were three months ago.
If I want to buy I type something like: "where to buy <specific> widget." Any buying site welcome, if comfortable enough and good value.
If I don't want to buy but like to read e.g. some personal experiences I don't want those spammy sites coming up.
Remark: I'm doing online business as well. Trying not to bother. Users seem to like it.
>Originally spam was coined as the phrase to describe UCE - unsolictd commercial email.
Absolutely not. I actually have done some historical digging on the use of the word "spam." The term "spam" first achieved fairly widespread use amongst the Usenet community. For those unfamiliar with Usenet, it is a decentralized threaded discussion system. Sort of like lots of threaded website message boards without a central server. However, historical records can be found where the term "spam" was being used by the MUD communities in the 1980s. MUD stands for "multi-user-dungeon".
[zuggsoft.com...]
Both MUDs and Usenet were more important in this era than e-mail. Note this is before even the modern Internet; the earliest Usenet links were via telephone direct between servers; including trans-oceanic. The term "spam" wasn't used regarding e-mail until many years after it was being used amongst the MUD community and Usenet. Almost certainly it didn't originate on Usenet. Thus, the MUDs seem the best guest.
Thus ends the online history trivia lesson for the day. :)
You have described "where" the term spam originated, not "what" it was describing. Can you tell us "what" it was describing in the MUD community?
So please can someone explain how you guys who are building whiter than white, totally non-commercial sites such as Big Dave's excellent example, are actually making a living from these sites?."
I work full time as a Webmaster, therefore I am a professional.
And I also run my own *whiter than white, totally non commercial site* in my spare time.
Is that clear enough?
I remember reading this thread when it started and thinking how amusing it was to find people so ready to justify their own spam.
Yeh, im sure your 2 page, keyword stuffed site, that redicts visitors to your business is really providing a valuable service for users. Latter day Saints I think you'll find. :-/ God bless the spammers.
Reality is that your core business site is not good enough meet the needs of surfers, but your spam helps you cash in on the laziness of surfers.
Someone asked quite a few posts back, where is Amazon for certain phrases? Eg "Buying a *******".
Answer - most likely buried under dozens of networked affiliate sites.
But what really makes me laugh my ass off is the suggestion that pure content sites are in some way tainted, or lesser value due to the source (ie usually a single opinion), but masses of affiliate sites, with the same design, little content, internal linking structure and all *designed by the same person / company* are in some way providing a service! ROFL!
Remove head from sand. Take of blinkers. Open eyes. Give self slap across the face.
You have been kidding youself.
Cookie cutter (mass produced) affiliate sites are to the web what mailshots and cold calling are to conventional business.
It may be fairly common, and a tolerated marketing practice, but make no mistake, you are the bottom of the food chain of the profession.
Your ability to churn out 100 sites does not make you a SEO professional, just as sending out 100,000 flyers doesnt make you a marketing professional.
If you can achieve with one site what you *try* to with 100, then, yes, you are providing a valuable service. Yes, your site deserves itīs rankings. And yes, you are a SEO professional.
Do it with 100 and you are faking it then coming here to justify it to the community (and perhaps even yourself! ;)).
Scott :)
"The term spamming got used to apply to a few different behaviours. One was to flood the computer with too much data to crash it. Another was to "spam the database" by having a program create a huge number of objects, rather then creating them by hand. And the term was sometimes used to mean simply flooding a chat session with a bunch of text inserted by a program (commonly called a "bot" today) or just by inserting a file instead of your own real time typing output."
This same source cites Peter da Silva (who is a very notable name to those of us who know Internet history) as stating the term was used in the early 1980s on TRS-80 based BBSs, and he speculates that it originated on Bitnet, which was even an earlier chat system. However, that source then goes on to point out that if you search the earliest Google Usenet archives, conspicuous by it absence are BBSers or Bitnet chat folks who were on Usenet using the term "spam", which if it were in common use by them surely this would be expected. As such I consider the claim the term "spam" was used prior to the MUD communities as apocryphal.
I would like to add that affiliate web sites are for people that do not have something of their own to offer, and if you have nothing to offer...
Everything on the internet is the same "distance". We do NOT need a franchise on every corner.
I sell widgets. Lots of my users also require widget insurance. I don't do insurance, not my field of expertise. So I place affiliate links to widget insurance on my site.
There's a perfectly valid point that webmasters tend to see competitors (that rank better) as "using spammy techniques" when in fact they sometimes merely target another audience or have another aim for their site. The sub-discussion about commercial versus non-commercial content is highly relevant as well, as for most keyphrases there are actually good sites in both categories (as well as a lot of greyzones).
Affiliate sites do dominate the serps for some phrases and keywords. It's inherent in the affiliate model that you have to do this in order to earn money - you simply have to do the promotion for the underlying site, whether it's amazon or something else, as if this site was ranked higher, customers would go there directly leaving you with zero income - and the same goes for competitors. But, still, "affiliate" does not equal "spam" - all kinds of sites can use spammy techniques.
It does polarize the web and the serps though, as what should really be presented to the searcher - a "non-profit content" site, a "real commercial" site or an "affiliate" site?
It's easy to jump to the conclusion that the affiliate sites must be removed, as these are just "the middleman" and serve no real purpose. Still, they do, as they act as marketing channels for the site they are affiliates for, and without them the "real commercial" site might be buried below a lot of non-commercials.
And then there's the thin line between this and the cloaking or even shadowdomain type approach. Plus, the fact that no Search Engines specify an exact definition of "spam" (and for good reasons). Add the tendency to monitor the serps day in and day out, and general webmaster ambition. Personally i think that this leads to too many sites being reported as "spam" in some cases.
Oh, and then it's always easier than just beating them. That may take time and real work as well. On the other hand, if you target one keyword only you will have to do this anyway, as when one competitor leave, another enter.
I don't think that affiliate sites will dissappear in the near future. Even though we now have froogle and even though (inevitably) "real" ecommerce or otherwise commercial sites will simply have to grow up and build better sites (SEO-wise) it will still be cheaper to have a ton of webmasters doing marketing for you for free in the hope of earning a few dollars. They (affiliates) compete, so you (commercial site) don't have to - and you probably wouldn't stand a chance either.
