Forum Moderators: open
For example, site 1 is about blue widgets, site 2 is indigo widgets, site 3 is azure widgets, etc... Each page is almost the same but focusses on a slightly different tint of blue widgets.
My questions is whether networks like this are considered spam by Google?
Nick
If its not considered spam by Google, then I will be doing the same.
If its considered spam by Google, and it competes with me, I will report it.
Completely legitimate question.
My point is just that I don't really see the point.
Personally I have better things to do than worry about this stuff and, just wonedered what Good_Vibe's interest in it was.
Good_Vibes...?
Nick
But what if *you* consider it spam?
>If its considered spam by Google, and it competes with me, I will report it.
But what if *you* don't consider it spam?
If spam is published in the woods, and nobody reports it, is it still spam?
;)
Okay, so I'll put up 31 sites -> and then do the same thing...and then the next bloke will do 32 sites -> and interlink those.
Hmmm...I don't really see the end of that trail of thought. 'the one with the most domains, wins'.
Isn't that the way Google works? Just take a look at the dmoz links to Google -> all those green balls. How much would that increase Google's PageRank? A lot, I would think...
So, if you've got 50 sites, you probably do well -> if you've got a 100, odds are, you're doing better still.
If the user gets what they want, I could care less if there were 1000 cloaked, redirected, spammed out domains all owned by 1 person dominating every 'widget' SERP I found.
However, if I was competing against them, :) I'd probably just go out and buy 1001 domains.
No end to this one, I'm afraid.
Personally I have better things to do than worry about this stuff
Well, if five of these linked sites were showing up ahead of you in the SERPs and pushing your listing onto the second page, the best use of your time might be to expose them rather than adopting risky or forbidden techniques to try and compete. I guess this will be an ongoing, unresolvable debate here, but IMO it comes down to return on time invested - you are doing the most cost-effective job for your client if you choose the most efficient and lowest risk methods. (My answer, not Good_Vibe's :))
the best use of your time might be to expose them rather than adopting risky or forbidden techniques to try and compete
I dont do the 'white hat' thing. I'd just beat them at their own game. (or try anyway!)
Nick
My own view on what is spam is besides the point. Google's view IS the point.
Its a jungle out there. I do what I think works - for now and the future. Gathering data on what works is part of that.
The defination of spam can be very subjective.
To me spam is what other important players conceive it to be. My own view is unimportant.
And I sure DO want to know what Google (or AV. Y!, Fast etc) considers spam (as far as possible, which is limited), because then i wont do it. And conversely if its not seen as spam iid do it if it seems profitable.
I just dont understand why Nick cant see the point. To me the point is very clear. And Good Vibes motivations for asking the question are beside the point.
And to get back to the point, nobody has answered the question yet. Should we assume that nobody knows? That's a perfectly reasonable answer, but if there is some intelligence out there, i wanna hear it.
Nick >>I dont do the 'white hat' thing. I'd just beat them at their own game. (or try anyway!)<<
Would be handy to know whether the "game" is likely to get you into trouble first. And sometimes the "white hat thing" can save you a heap of time and effort...
I hear those ten thousand monkeys in the forrest auto generate a lot of doorways...
There are plenty of views about spam; we're never going to find an answer to the battle of philosophies.
It's also important to webmasters and SEOs who have to make decisions about what's safe for client sites, or for some to be able to decide to whether even take on potential client sites.
I was asked to look at a network of sites not too long ago that's involved heavily in cross-linking, done by the previous SEO. I could easily have worked on the sites, which legitimately needed a hub/spoke pattern, but decided not to even go near it, since it was what I considered to be way over the line in an industry that can't help but be heavily watched. If the spit hit the fan, which looked inevitable to me, why should I be involved in what someone else did before I came along, and then take the blame if it couldn't be remedied in time.
That's purely a subjective opinion on deciding what's over the line. We've had multiple discussions on cross-linking and there never has been any definitive answer, because there can't be. Cross-linking takes a strategy, and when strategies fail no one is telling what they did to cause the problem specifically. Neither is anyone telling what strategies are working for them - and who knows how long their good luck will last, or if what works on some works on all.
There are too many variables, and it's highly unlikely that Google will ever spill the beans on what is or isn't safe; they'd have to be crazy to give out that kind of ammunition.
The best thing is to leave them alone and carefully study when we find networks like that, analyze what they've done, and see what happens over time. Of course, we shouldn't forget that there may be sites that Google knows about and deliberately leaves out there so they can watch. What better way to study and learn about spam than to watch the spammers?
Reporting could turn out to be counter-productive in the long run. Someone can report something, see it stay in, copy the strategy and then get busted themselves while the other one stays in as a Google "research project." I don't know for a fact if they do that, but if I worked for Google that's exactly what I'd do, it makes perfect sense and I think it's a safe assumption.
>>battle of philosophies
I don't know quite where philosophical discussions belong - maybe in blogs - but they're actually irrelevant and useless to discussing matters of importance as to how people should do their sites. Our philosophies are subjective, and what helps is objectivity in practical matters. Philosophizing takes things down to a personal level and can and does cause divisions; dealing with objective issues rather than personalities is the factor that helps instead of ultimately hurting, looking at it from a perspective that's broader than just personal interest.
Spam is in the eye of the beholder from our side of the fence, and looking over to the other side of the fence, Google ain't telling.
[edited by: Marcia at 9:34 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2003]
It's called hold the ketchup and pass the mustard and Page Rank around the table, please.
That doesn't mean it is or isn't OK, which is subjective and irrelevant. The important point is whether it's safe, and if not, how could it be made safer. If there are 30, or however many, sites that should legitimately be cross-linked because it benefits the users, what kind of variety can be introduced to break the chain, or what can be eliminated?
For example, site 1 is about blue widgets, site 2 is indigo widgets, site 3 is azure widgets, etc... Each page is almost the same but focusses on a slightly different tint of blue widgets.
Nope I think Google would see it as spam.
Let’s see
1) All sites related to different products.
2) All sites have different content. (Products might fall in same category, so content might be somewhat similar, but not *copy-paste*, right) (In addition, I assume the content on the site will be reasonably different.
3) So what if the layout is same (there are thousands of sites that buy templates and uses them - aren't they going to be the same)
At first, I was also thinking this would be considered as spam. But about 3 months ago I saw something totally similar (but just more spammy) in medical software field - so I went ahead and send a letter to Goggle along with the mention of WebmasterWorld (P.S. GG told me at WebmasterWorld)as GG have asked in the forums. But nothing happened - so I wrote them again and again and again and again - but nothing happened.
So based on my experience with Google and learning bit more about how se's works (do you know WebmasterWorld is a great place for that), I would say above is *not* a spam.
They all are
1) Same Company
2) Different products
3) Similer layout.
4) Generally same host and IP (but sometimes unique IP)
and the final outcome is generally top ranking at Google.
To answer Nick who seems stressed about my motives (:)), Chiyo described by motives quite well in post #4.
This network has 4 of the top 10 in a very high demand keyword, such as widgets. But his sites are about blue widgets only, not widgets in general. My site, which is about all widgets, has been pushed to the second page. So I want to either
a) report him or
b) copy his methods
Of course I want to know if this is appropriate for Google or not.
After reading this, I am leaning towards reporting him.
That's the objective reality we all have to deal with all the time; it's the nature of the battle we're in. If you feel that those sites are detrimental to the quality of the search results and your conscience dictates it, do what you feel you have to do.
Realistically speaking, your main task is to figure out how to beat those other 6. If the 4 are gone, others will come along who are also fighting for the first page. His absence won't put you at number 1, only your own efforts will.
No one ever said it was easy, and it isn't. We know it hurts sometimes; it can be a very frustrating feeling when people who want to stay on the safe side are up against what they feel are risks they'd rather not take.
I am not concerned with the 6 ahead of me, what gets my goat is that these 4 pages of his are not about widgets in general, they are only about blue widgets. A user or search for widgets should see my page, or any of the other 6. Not 4 sites about blue widgets.
If I did a search for hockey, I would not want to see 4 team homepages among the top 10. I would want 10 sites about hockey in general.
Google mainly cares for searchers to be happy with search engine results.
Different domains (owned by one entity) with each very informative content could very well deliver those results.
Amongst others, Google also prefers pages to rank well because others (other entities) think they have good content. Ranking well only because of internal seperate domain network cross-linking would not qualify as "independent others/entities".
The moment your seperate domains are dominating all kinds of search engine results pages, for various search queries without being relevant, you are definately asking for attention and trouble, IMO.
Goodvibes, what you describe looks likes someone is not being very clever about it.
Good point Vita.
It is not the different domains that makes this into spam, but the fact that they are ranking well because of an internal interlinking system. That is why it is spam.
It's like a politician buying a lot of votes and voting for himself.
