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]
Unsolicited is the operative word. Presumably, if a user asks a system to show him sites where he can buy "widgets" and the system obliges, with the top result being such a site then, in the strict sense of the word, the result cannot be spam - the user requested the result.
Seach engine developers have stretched the meaning of spam to indicate manipulation of their search algorithms. Is there a hint of professional pride at play here - "My algorithm is so good it can't possibly be fooled"; it gets fooled; new spam method is identified. (The old trick of give something a dishonourable label in an attempt to capture the moral high ground, without necessarily having proved the validity of the label first)
The problem with your analysis is spammers need not be successful to be a problem. Today several dozen spammers may dominate a certain SERP. Because they all suck, they eventually fail as a business and are no longer on the Net. However, by that time several other spammers have popped up just like them.
While I use the term loosely it's the most recognized term for douping visitors into a chasm of unwanted information.
I've submitted spam reports for sites that try to install AdWare/SpyWare on its visitors systems. That isn't really the spam we're all familiar with.
The goal of search engines is to provide the "best" content to its users.
If the web sites in a search engine use questionable methods of luring users in, obtaining personal information to enhance their content, or implement a traditional spam tactic they shouldn't be in SERPs.
That's just my take on a very small aspect of what could be defined as spam.
Because they all suck, they eventually fail as a business and are no longer on the Net
What makes you so sure that "they all suck"? The most successful converting page on the web would simply be a large link on an otherwise completely blank background which says "CLICK HERE FOR WIDGETS".
I also don't know how you can postulate they fail as a business. If they do, I don't know how you can summise this is due to poor conversion rates. More likely it is due to being dropped by Google thereafter receiving insufficient traffic.
Further to my above post, I would not be the first one here to observe that it makes sense that Google do not want the most successful commercial sites performing well in the SERPs even if they are of most benefit to their users. They want these sites paying for their paid listings. For example, why shouldn't it be the case that Ebay be ranked first for every search term involving the word "auction"? With its size and history, it must surely be the site with most relevance and value to most users. Perhaps this task is too difficult considering the criteria that Google uses to rank sites for given terms. If this is the case, surely a site promoting Ebay even if its content is limited would still provide the most benefit to the user.
Is Google mostly about cosmetic appeal, rather than substance? Or is it the case that Google simply wants to discourage commercial activity for search terms that it stands to make the most profit from? Neither answer addresses its stated primary goal of user satisfaction.
This post is not a criticism of Google by any means. Until they are acquired by some international non-commercial body, they must continue to have commercial motives. This post is aimed at the folly of those webmasters who incessantly complain about what they consider to be search engine spam as if to imply their content is of more value to the user community.
[edited by: Bottler at 1:33 am (utc) on June 4, 2003]
Now if I expect to find SOME content or at least a SEPARATE PAGE, it might get frustrating digging through these affiliate sites!
Is Google mostly about cosmetic appeal, rather than substance? Or is it the case that Google simply wants to discourage commercial activity for search terms that it stands to make the most profit from? Neither answer addresses its stated primary goal of user satisfaction.
If you assume the former, then you are hideously mistaken. 35% of searches are commercial in nature (according to the last conference I went to), so appeasing that minority is pointless.
Given 65% of searches are looking for information about something, why promote spammy affiliate pages / sites? If you want to buy NOW (as opposeds to EVENTUALLY, after researching the topic), then make 'em pay via adwords, or follow an affiliate link off one of the content pages. This way, the 35% get what they want, the 65% get what they want, you heppy, me heppy, isn't the world wonderful? And this isn't wanting to "...discourage commercial activity..", it is a fact, and giving MOST people what they want.
There is no particularly good way to decide INTENT based upon a two word search, e.g. "blue car", so Search Engines HAVE to make an assumption about intent. They assume researcher, you assume consumer, and that intent dictates what will rank better.
Quite frankly, I am on Google's side on this one, and glad they chose this path.
<edit>SOOO MANY typos</edit>
The original post here just seems like an attempt at justification. Spam sites are just trying to increase their click rate instead of trying to increase their conversion rate.
Oh yeah, the subtitle of this thread is accurate, but not completely truthful. Most content is not quality, free or not. But the majority of the best content on the web is in fact free.
35% of searches are commercial in nature (according to the last conference I went to), so appeasing that minority is pointless
Yet here you invalidate the correctness of this figure.
There is no particularly good way to decide INTENT based upon a two word search,
I would be very surprised if the presenter at the last conference you attended could read the minds of the users this 35% is based on.
In which case, the key is to realize that a search that is not commercial in nature (and by extrapolation?, intent) is also not valuable to the spammer. The user has no wish to buy at this stage - offering the user commercial content will not convert well and is therefore less likely to be a target of the spammer.
However suppose the user is simply researching a commercial topic before making a purchasing decision. On what basis should the user trust a site that ranks well in a particular search claiming to be unbiased and well-informed? If the site is non-profit, the user has no standard by which to measure the accuracy of this information. If the site is commercial, there are two possibilities. Either, according to your argument, it's reliability is blurred by its commercial motives, or it has sufficient respect and resources to justify its own affiliate program and hence ultimately propagate the commercial aspirations of a new collection of spammers.
Morgan wrote :
The only times I see junk at the top is when the sites they are competing against are weak, or it's an area where no one wants to compete.
In general that is my observation as well. Relying on commercial market forces is by no means a perfect practice, but commercial standards are much more often than not far more reliable and useful to users than a random orgy of personal opinion or pseudo-content.
Have a citation on that? I'd have expected the percentage to be *much* lower. If for no other reason that people have limited amounts of money to spend online.
The point is that there's no way for a search engine algorithm to accurately determine WHAT search terms a page is genuinely relevant for if it is cloaked, uses hidden text, etc. You can create scenarios where "spam" on a certain page will actually enhance the end user's searching experience, but IMO they are vanishingly rare.
Unsolicited, you bet. Irrelevant, certainly.
Spam on the Internet is opportunistic and distracting. Who knows what this 15 year old boy might have done if I had not been there? At the least he was distracted from his original intent.
Spam on the Internet is like candy and magazines at the checkout stand. It aims to distract a person and lure them into an impulsive purchase. It has nothing to do with quality, and little to do with ethical or effective marketing. It is based on deceptive psychology and the exploitation of human nature.
Hard to defend it if it is seen for what it really is.
WBF
I think the 35% is accurate, but a good portion of that 35% are people that are researching commercial topics.
I was looking up a weird piece of farm equipment today that I passed out in a field last night. I'm not going to buy one, I just wanted to know what it was. Most of the sites I was on were commercial sites, so I suppose my search was commercial in nature.
I suspect that most of the visitors to my "random orgy of personal opinion or pseudo-content" informational site arrive off of what could be considered to be commercial searches.
I can only hope that someday my site will be able to meet the high content standards of the average spammy affiliate site. ;-p
The problem with your analysis is spammers need not be successful to be a problem. Today several dozen spammers may dominate a certain SERP. Because they all suck, they eventually fail as a business and are no longer on the Net.
What a stupid thing to say. I agree with Merlin. Lemme get this straight, those who recongize the importance of free marketing by creative tactics are doomed to fail financially? Your obviously running a poor business yourself with that philosophy.
I can only hope that someday my site will be able to meet the high content standards of the average spammy affiliate site.
There's no question that spammy sites often have low or non-existent content. But the sites they promote usually are very profitable and have a lot to offer users - a lot more than much of the free content out there. Moreover, if these sponsor sites are not relevant to users, they dont succeed or usually survive.
It is based on deceptive psychology and the exploitation of human nature
Sounds like you're saying users are so stupid , they need to be protected from their own impulses? Actually I believe you have this upside down. The most profitable searches are those which are usually motivated by impulse e.g. data recovery, legal advice, adult entertainment etc
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?
I have yet to see that happen. The typical spammer directs the user to a cookie-cutter hotel booking page, a product order page, or some other boilerplate affiliate page that provides no added value whatsoever.
Also, you seem to believe--as so many WW members do--that Google is primarily a shopping engine. That isn't the case, and I doubt very much that Google's founders judge the quality of their search results by the percentage of users who are directed (or misdirected) to e-commerce pages.
Finally, you shouldn't assume that Webmasters who oppose spam do so because they're unable to compete. Some of us do very well in terms of both traffic and revenues, but we've been around long enough to recognize that high-quality, spam-free search results are good for users and for site owners who are in business for the long haul.
No, by that I mean that _most_ spammers have a poor business model. Just reality.
Has anyone ever seen credible statistics on this? This couldn't be done by just analyzing search phrases. "Paris France information" could be a search by someone thinking of traveling there, or just someone curious about the city. A more sophisticated methodology than that is needed.
With very little effort, it would be easy to get ahead of any Spam I've ever run across
Morgan - if you're right - you certainly have a system!
I'd suggest that you look at the listings for the most competitive commercial search phrases on the web - like cheap airline tickets, discount mortgage brokers etc and start your research there.
Your question in the other thread wasn't clear - I thought you asked for 'examples' of spam - as in 'types/methods' - not where there was a breach of the TOS in results for highly competitive terms.
So you have now answered your own question - start with the listing of highly competitive terms; get some tools, and do some research!
Chris_D
Also, you seem to believe--as so many WW members do--that Google is primarily a shopping engine.
No I don't at all. I believe that market forces will determine to what extent Google is a shopping engine. If users want to buy after performing a search, those searches will naturally become commercial targets (and hence "spam" targets). If users don't want to buy after searching, those search terms will fail as spam targets. The extent of commerciality rests naturally in the hands of the users where it belongs.
Thinking further about this, I predict the day when Google allows webmasters to "rent" PageRank. The sense of this is clear - those presently spamming sites with keywords less relevant to these sites will not survive against those PageRank renters who can afford to offer a quality relevant sponsor to users. Secondly, sites which do have relevant non-commercial content will dominate commercial sites where conversion rates are not sufficient to justify spending on Pagerank which would exceed the existing Pagerank of the non-commercial sites. On the other hand, it is also quite clear that the searches for which non-commercial content is weak will be dominated by the commercial PageRank renters.
Google's job then will become one of balancing the natural informational value of sites against their commercial value to users.
To each his own Bottler. There are businesses that succeed because they value the relationship with the customer and their return business, and there are those that rely on a never ending stream of new marks. One deals three card monte at the carnival and one knows all his customers by their first name.
Both may become wealthy, but one knows that money is not the true source of his wealth.
If you base your business on deceipt, your reputation will be rooted in that deception.
I guess it all comes down to integrity. Your argument is rather like the car thief saying that the victim deserved to have their car stolen since they were stupid enough to have left the keys in the ignition.
WBF
A true [pro] search engine spammers business is not the (e-book, casino or hotel site he sends you to. His real business is ADVERTISING, a field that occasionaly stretches ethics a bit:)
I know at least 1 place you can get a domain name & hosting for $25 yr.-- $2 month!
A spammer can buy tons of domain names, try different spam stategies
on each. Most may fail, but only a few need to hit big. If a G crackdown comes along and nails his spam type, so what? there was little invested in that site anyway. A mom & pop site that makes a mistake will suffer though.
--not trying to defend spam <<IT SUCKS>>
I know a place that will let you host up to 100 domains for $19.95 a month. With domain going for about $10 each, that is half the cost you mention above per year.
I think your argument that spamming is moral is ludicrous.
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 sponsor must be very targetted and relevant to the user's query
- the sponsor must have a high quality website and offering, be commercially responsible, and be very competitive for users to be persuaded to take the necessary actions
- must be sufficiently profitable and must share that wealth in order to attract sufficient affiliates to the traffic-generation cause.
Your assumptions are flawed as well. First of all, SPAM is not the exclusive domain of affiliates. There are plenty of desperate / unethical non-affiliate businesses trying to SPAM the engines.
You postulated that spam needs to be highly relevant to drive traffic for the affiliate/commercial sponsor of the spam. If that were true, I suppose there would be no such thing as untargeted e-mail SPAM, banner ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, etc.
There are many flavors of SE-SPAM.
Some spammers just want traffic in volume. They will target traffic from any and all keywords in an attempt to drive traffic. The prevailing mentality seems to be that a small conversion from a lot of untargeted traffic is better than higher conversions of targeted traffic.
Then there are the ones who try to dominate a given SERP by having as many of the top 10-20 SERPs be doorways/mirrors/etc. pointing to the same base site. Do you honestly believe this enhances the end user experience?
If you believe that most affiliate pages, doorway & mirror pages are high quality, then I would suggest that you have not looked around much. I think too many people get suckered into a get rich quick mentality and their sites reflect it.
As a user, I find it frustrating to encounter this garbage when I'm looking for something.
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.
<runs for cover>.....................
PS, nice post, and WELCOME!
Nick
Wow, sticking your neck out there Nick! I think there's more devil's advocate in your comment than logic, but perhaps my definition of spam is more narrow than many here. I generally see SE spam as sites that offer no content, but serve the sole purpose of promoting a product or service on a search engine. Just as unrequested email spam offers no content compared to a commercial newsletter I may have signed up to.
I think the comparison between UCE and search engine spam is a good one. Your typical email spammer send out millions of messages in order to generate a reasonable return that 'genuine' emails could generate with less exposure.
As a frequent online shopper and an experienced internet user, I will say this:
I detest spam. I will never buy anything from someone who I know or suspect is using spam tactics. If you are prepared to 'cheat' to get ahead, what kind of products and services can I expect from you?
Unfortunately, many affiliates sites get tarred with my same brush. If I'm searching for something to buy and I come across a pattern in sites or products I usually go direct to the source, and make a mental note to avoid the spammer forever.
I think as the net public at large becomes more experienced and educated, spammers revenue will decrease still further. Or at worst, they will have to try much harder than a template on a couple of 100 domains and an affiliate program in order to stand any chance of making a profit.
If there are 200 *different* affiliates that put up the exact same template page, that is not spam, it is just stupid and annoying. It should be filtered to remove all but one of them.
If a site is abusing hidden text, or cloaking with keyword stuffed pages, that is spam.
I do not care if the content on the spam site is the best in the world. Their ethics suck. I realize it is a difficult concept for most marketing and business majors to understand, but most people in this world prefer to deal with ethical businesses.
There is a town on the Olympic Peninsula where the owners screwed over one of the tenants in their building, now all the locals make sure that they buy their gas in the city 30 miles away and only tourists buy gas at the local station.
You can choose to support the used car dealer mentality if you wish. I prefer to deal with companies that EARN my respect and my money.
Just what I was trying to get across BigDave.
The definition of spam is a bit of a stumbling block for me. If you use some SEO trickery to get your quality site to the top, great! If you use SEO trickery to get you poor affiliate site to the top, boo! spam! :)
