Is this something I should report

[dunnthat]

I've been a lurker here for a long time...and learned a ton! Our ranking is a direct result of some of the tips I've listened and adhered to around here and I thank everyone.

A competitor in a new keyword that we'd like to make headway in is using 500-1000 words on the home page at the bottom in the same color as the background...so they are invisible.

Is this an offense that I should submit to google as spammy? And should it worry me about looking upon me as a tattletale....or should I just not worry about it.

And if I do submit it to google, I think I remember being told by googleguy to mention webmaster world somehow.

I hate to be a tattle tale, but the site is tricking visitors, IMHO..

Thanks,
Dunnthat

[Powdork]

Take a top ten page that has set in the top ten for atleast 6 months under any keyword or phrase. Redo the entire page in any style, format, or construct you want. Just make sure to keep similar content with title and major kws still occuring in the text.

Ok, now you've lost me. All it seems you are saying is that the construct of the page does not matter but the content does. The page in question is providing content to spiders but hiding it from users, which is obvious spam. The hidden keywords are all additional content which does help your rankings, especially if there only mention is in the hidden text. I operate a restaurant's site and we score well for wedding and restaurant related keywords. I put my first mention of our New Year's party on the home page and two days later we ranked #1 for 'ourregion New Years Eve'. The only criteria is on page (although I certainly think freshness plays a large part). If the words were hidden we would still rank #1.
Oh yeah, I would whole heartedly report them because I am only responsible for making sure my kids eat.

[Marcia]

Powdork, most of the more creative efforts I've personally seen are being done using off-page criteria, both with link text and setting up Page Rank ranches of multiple interlinked sites. They're not done to rank necessarily, it's rather to build a network to pass on to a prime site that's meant to rank, generally not well optimized on its own, but with valuable branding. That's the expensive side of SEO.

Whether they're spam or not is in the eye of the beholder, it isn't the issue; the fact is, they're smart SEOs who know their stuff. Some walk a fine line and are legit enough to be able to pass scrutiny; they know just how not to cross over. For now, anyway. Given enough cumulative data, Google can no doubt move that line.

There are people who are on the fifth page of results who sceam, flail and whine because of a "spam" site in the top ten. Most of them couldn't get a good listing if they tacked it up onto their refrigerator with a magnet. They scream and whine out of frustration and report everything, but some wouldn't know what spam was if it was in a can right in front of them clearly labeled.

Like a lot of people, I'd rather "study" than report; in spite of the grey areas, some are exceptionally well done sites in other respects. I've watched a couple go down with no help from me - apparently the line moved and they got hit.

I could be wrong, but imho there's a difference in how heavily PR weighs down in the less competitive PR4-5 categories than in some that are predominantly over PR6. There are a couple of PR4 pages beating the pants off some PR6 sites ranging from 500+ to 1500 backlinks. There are no off-page inbound criteria figuring in, just on-page optimization and a couple of outbound relevant links. No doubt some might think there's spam involved, but it's just one of those "accidents" that keeps this all so interesting.

I've only reported a couple in all the time I'm watching Google; it doesn't ever feel good, no matter what. But if someone isn't a screamer and they they think they're sure of finding something that's malicious and damaging, they should report it and forget it instead of aggravating themselves month after month. Forget it and let Google worry about it, and just go on with their own business. That's just my view, opinions can vary.

[Powdork]

Hi Marcia
I hope I didn't come across as overzealous in the reporting of spam. My point was that the simple addition of a keyword that does not exist elsewhere on the page can move you to number 1 in a moderately competitive (or at least profitable) category. If someone is putting multiple hidden keywords which will cause them to rank well for many different profitable yet not quite competitive categories (I understand this may not quite be the case in question) then they should know what they are doing has an associated risk. I once posted about a site (in Google.groups) which I linked to that the link then redirected to page which had about 500 keywords in the title, 500 in the content, and 1000 in the meta keywords. In the body, the hidden text went way past 101 kb. Many of these keywords were our business's name, which is right next door. The next day GoogleGuy had the site removed and it is still gone. Because my username was the same as our business I had to go and nuke the post and cover my tracks so as not to be discovered. I also felt awful because the site belonged not only to our neighbour but our landlord. On the other hand we pay him over $200k/year in rent and nobody is starving anywhere on his property. It was a case of a poor site ranking well because of the spam and to this day they still haven't changed anything after 5 months. We've lost some referrals from them due to their lack of traffic, however. It does give me a lot of trust in Google (did I just say 'trust in Google'?) that I haven't been penalised for a reciprocated link to them all this time. Maybe they just don't know because of the redirection involved.
I do think dunnthat should consider whether the site would be there without the hidden text and that means checking incoming anchor and alt text, on page factors, backlinks, pr and the same for the competition.
That's the only site I've reported other than the dissatisfied with results form which mostly related to duplicate content, but not in a spam type.

I could be wrong, but imho there's a difference in how heavily PR weighs down in the less competitive PR4-5 categories than in some that are predominantly over PR6. There are a couple of PR4 pages beating the pants off some PR6 sites ranging from 500+ to 1500 backlinks. There are no off-page inbound criteria figuring in, just on-page optimization and a couple of outbound relevant links. No doubt some might think there's spam involved, but it's just one of those "accidents" that keeps this all so interesting.

I guess I'm glad thats where i reside. It makes for happy clients:)