Forum Moderators: open
1) There is a big SEO spammer, using doorpages and many crosslinked domains
2) The spammer receives links from his customers
3) The spammer receives links from many, MANY good sites too
So, knowing that Google can penalize the sites that link to a spammer (or to a banned site), the question is:
Can Google refuse to ban a spammer if the effects of the ban can drastically reduce the quality of the SERPs?
OTAH when spamming infringes on the fair competition rights of a competitor and it would be feasible for Google to remove the objectionable content then that situation might be different. Of course the primary responsebility would lie with the spammer.
Andreas
1) There is a big SEO spammer, using doorpages and many crosslinked domains
2) The spammer receives links from his customers
3) The spammer receives links from many, MANY good sites too
1) Who says so? also, what you are calling doorway pages, may actually be content pages for them.. and about crosslinking domains, I guess if they want to place different products/service category on different domains and interlink the domains to help the visitors on their site and why would/how can google say no?
2) What is wrong in getting links from their customers. If customers are *happy* with their product/service then why not recommend the company to others.
3) So you actually mean to say that this *many, MANY good sites* are also supporting spam? or you think they are just linking to a good company?
I am sure Google will ban spam.. but the spam they will ban is not what you or I think, but it is what *they* believe what spam is.
But the spammer is using tricks that *Google* believes are spam, as specified here and here.
Apparently not ;). Circular reasoning does not work except where it is necessarily circular.
Andreas
<added>After re-reading my post I'd like to point out that I didn't intend it to be rude ;) - I'd just be interested to know why it bothers you?</added>
Nick
Why do you care Lowlevel?
Reading my first post, I believe I wasn't clear:
the links coming from the SEO clients are NOT on "public" pages but on doorpages (with JS redirect) with no content for the users.
Further, many GENUINE links come from other good sites (unaware of SEO unethical tricks) and I was wondering if the probable automatic penalization of the *good* sites can push Google to keep the spammer in the database.
Hope I made it clear, now. :)
I think we should have the right to do whatever we feel we need to do.
Within reasonable limit, yes ;).
The reason most people like Google is because we try to do what's best for the user.
hmmm... who would have thought the user was the most important part of this equation.
I have gone to Google, did a search, clicked on the #1 result, found what I was looking for, and bought it... not once considering that #1 rank listing was spam.
LowLevel put yourself in the shoes of the searcher, not that of the competitor... you will get much more fruition that way.
If the site is delivering to the user what he or she is looking for, then I think the site passes the spam test.
Cheers.
:)
Yeah. Having many links from good sites is an argument this company isn't just a spammer.
Good news, but JS redirects (poor man's spam toolkit) aren't the biggest prob, IMHO. Most doorways redirect server sided.
thanks for your suggest. I will fill (another) spam report.
fathom,
I'm an "hobbist SEO" but SEO is not my work: the spammer is not a competitor.
I, as a simple user, can accept "some tricks" if they are used to push a good website, with interesting contents, but I don't like when a site ranks well just because of tricks.
(to be honest, I think that a site with good contents doesn't need any tricks at all, but this is just a personal opinion :) )
rfgdxm1,
it's possibile to both receive many genuine links and to be a spammer. ;) When a someone becomes "famous" about its good results, people genuinely link to him, unaware of the methods used to reach the good results.
The context of my post is this...
Google users rarely check to see if a listing is backed by doorway pages and crosslinked domains.
People competing for positioning do this (thus a competitor). If they are seriously abusing their knowledge and skill, Google will likely reduce this strategies effectiveness (but the rest of your comments suggests it will have little effect).
Adobe, Macromedia, Netscape, Microsoft (even Google) and every other company that provides quality customer service, support, or has something of value gets links from customers.
A site that has many, many quality sites linking to it sounds like a good site.
Between these two points regardless of what Google does you're unlikely going to see them go away.
My overall point however, is quite different: and quoting you:
...as a simple user, can accept "some tricks" if they are used to push a good website, with interesting contents, but I don't like when a site ranks well just because of tricks.
This is the key: a good website, with interesting contents
Google wants good websites with interesting content at the top, because that's what Google users keep coming back for. The user is the most important relationship Google has. (Not the webmaster, or SEO, or SEO hobbists) just the user.
In reality - if the site sucked and had no interesting content - Google users would back out and go to you.
What's more - the fact that Google users haven't (likely) reported this crappy web site tend add to the likelihood that it will remain.
In the end - if people are happy with (what you preceive as )a "spammer" you are going to have a tough time convincing otherwise.
Everyone hates Microsoft - most though still buy their products
I will think about your words, it seems that my concept of "bad thing" could be different from Google's concept of "bad thing".
I just thought that a website should deserve top positions just because of its merits and not because of tons of links coming from contentless doorpages (even on shadow domains).
Maybe I was too strictly applying the guidelines that Google published on their site. :(
Really thanks for sharing with me your point of view, I appreciated it very much. :)
