Well, this may seem a little childish... but I have seen evidence of
Google taking action against a spammy site!
One of my clients asked me to examine a site, as they couldn't
understand how it was always beating them.
Upon examination, the site was Flash based, and had tones of spammy/
stuffed text shoved in 'behind' it.
Made the report.
It took a little time (approximately 5 weeks?)... but the site is no
longer in the index!
Go Google... go google...
:dance:
Now if only there was a 'name and shame' or 'proof of punishment'
section to google... someting to point out that they really do take
action - it owuld not only help reinforce the whole "thou shall not
spam" idea, but encourage people to report bad practices!
(Okay.. so in reality it weould mean people sniping each other and G
having to close the reporting tool down! Sorry - sometimes I suffer
from optimism ;) ).
I had the same trouble where some chancer's adsense site consisted
ONLY of pages that were cut and pasted from our site.
The copy was orignal because I had written it. They had even copied
all the meta data!
A check at Whois revealed the person had witheld his address as he was
"non commercial" (although he was running 12 other adsense only
sites). We couldn't even sent a restraint letter.
Here's us trying to avoid duplicate content and some crook just steals
it and uploads it lock, stock and barrel!
In fairness to Google they did act on the complaint and the sites have
disappeared. Thanks.
G
> Well, this may seem a little childish... but I have seen evidence of
> Google taking action against a spammy site!
> One of my clients asked me to examine a site, as they couldn't
> understand how it was always beating them.
> Upon examination, the site was Flash based, and had tones of spammy/
> stuffed text shoved in 'behind' it.
> Made the report.
> It took a little time (approximately 5 weeks?)... but the site is no
> longer in the index!
> Go Google... go google...
> :dance:
> Now if only there was a 'name and shame' or 'proof of punishment'
> section to google... someting to point out that they really do take
> action - it owuld not only help reinforce the whole "thou shall not
> spam" idea, but encourage people to report bad practices!
> (Okay.. so in reality it weould mean people sniping each other and G
> having to close the reporting tool down! Sorry - sometimes I suffer
> from optimism ;) ).
"Now if only there was a 'name and shame' or 'proof of punishment'
section to google"
That's a great idea :-) I love it
"Okay.. so in reality it would mean people sniping each other and G
having to close the reporting tool down"
I wonder if it would be less susceptable to that if you had to login
to register a complaint first rather than being able to just submit
annoymous submissions?
I suspect users wouldn't want other users from being able to see "who"
you have reported - but if Google can see who is submitting it then
that might help reduce the risk of the feature being abused. Also, you
could then perhaps "track" complaints (just an idea). I've sumitted a
few sites over the past couple of years and alhough a few have gone I
have no idea if tha's partly because of my feedback. On the flip side,
a few of the sites are still there - I don't necessaily want to re-
submit a complaint as I suspect Google are swamped with them, but a
way to see if it's been reviewed by the Google team would be good.
...gary777...
Glad to hear that got resolved... not exactly spam .. .but still
damned unfair!
...kessa...
The danger of that is that some people will jsut create 'fake'
accounts to report with.
But I can see some benefits ... if registered and seen to be active
and 'legitmate' it could be weighted as a little more 'possibly real'.
?
...Phil Payne...
Good thinking... we could all go looking at some of hte 'big guns' and
dob them in....
"Mr Google, Mr Google ... that company has a shoddy site and they
use... (in a whisper) the dark side of the forSEo !"
I don't think they should do that. It could mean legal troubles.
Creating a spam site is not against the law and posting that web
address of the spammer could lead to trouble. Maybe the example
without the URL would be fine but the rules really are pretty clear.
No keyword stuffing. I am glad they are taking more notice.
the more spammy and web guideline breaking sites that get removed the
better for all of us. The people that run honest websites that dont
break the rules and the general public that use google as a search
engine. Just wish G would bash a few more. in the 10 ten search
results for one quiery i found 4 sites that broke the webmaster
guidelines as i understand them with hidden text, or spammy content.
> I don't think they should do that. It could mean legal troubles.
> Creating a spam site is not against the law and posting that web
> address of the spammer could lead to trouble. Maybe the example
> without the URL would be fine but the rules really are pretty clear.
> No keyword stuffing. I am glad they are taking more notice.
> On Apr 23, 6:12 am, Phil Payne wrote:
> > IMO it would help if Google went after a few more BMWs.
> > That one really got the world's attention.- Hide quoted text -
I have reported the following site that gets returned for "strip club
lists" no less than 5 times, for at least 6 months, yet it still gets
returned in the top 5 results.
Trust me, it's safe to click on from work, as it has NOTHING to do
with Toronto, strip clubs or anything else remotely erotic, unless you
consider RIP 1.1.0 (which I guess is some game?) to be erotic.
> the more spammy and web guideline breaking sites that get removed the
> better for all of us. The people that run honest websites that dont
> break the rules and the general public that use google as a search
> engine. Just wish G would bash a few more. in the 10 ten search
> results for one quiery i found 4 sites that broke the webmaster
> guidelines as i understand them with hidden text, or spammy content.
> On Apr 23, 2:48 pm, Shades1 wrote:
> > I don't think they should do that. It could mean legal troubles.
> > Creating a spam site is not against the law and posting that web
> > address of the spammer could lead to trouble. Maybe the example
> > without the URL would be fine but the rules really are pretty clear.
> > No keyword stuffing. I am glad they are taking more notice.
> > On Apr 23, 6:12 am, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > IMO it would help if Google went after a few more BMWs.
> > > That one really got the world's attention.- Hide quoted text -
made for adsense site, not worth the server space its is on. those are
the sort of sites G should be killing, it makes G look bad. If i was G
i would suspend there adsense account, because a site that contains
over 50% of its content as adsense makes google look bad, it also
devalues adsense. Meaning G isnt getting the returns from adsense it
should be be. with adsense my belief is less is more, four of five ads
from G on a site with quality content is worth good $$$ to G a site
like that is just wasting googles bandwidth in terms of adsense. G
should concentrate on the quality of adsense not the quantity, this in
part could explain why G's revenue from adsense has been increasing as
much as it should over the last year.
> I have reported the following site that gets returned for "strip club
> lists" no less than 5 times, for at least 6 months, yet it still gets
> returned in the top 5 results.
> Trust me, it's safe to click on from work, as it has NOTHING to do
> with Toronto, strip clubs or anything else remotely erotic, unless you
> consider RIP 1.1.0 (which I guess is some game?) to be erotic.
> But I'm just whining again, aren't I?
> On Apr 23, 9:34 am, irondarren wrote:
> > the more spammy and web guideline breaking sites that get removed the
> > better for all of us. The people that run honest websites that dont
> > break the rules and the general public that use google as a search
> > engine. Just wish G would bash a few more. in the 10 ten search
> > results for one quiery i found 4 sites that broke the webmaster
> > guidelines as i understand them with hidden text, or spammy content.
> > On Apr 23, 2:48 pm, Shades1 wrote:
> > > I don't think they should do that. It could mean legal troubles.
> > > Creating a spam site is not against the law and posting that web
> > > address of the spammer could lead to trouble. Maybe the example
> > > without the URL would be fine but the rules really are pretty clear.
> > > No keyword stuffing. I am glad they are taking more notice.
> > > On Apr 23, 6:12 am, Phil Payne wrote:
> > > > IMO it would help if Google went after a few more BMWs.
> > > > That one really got the world's attention.- Hide quoted text -
Yup... war on spam time?
Jsut for a laugh, we could all decide on term/target/sector/word...
scour through for some spam, and start reporting it.
I know it seems liek a waste... but for 5 minutes a day... I'm certain
we could find some juicy ones.
As to the legal implications... I really don't think there are any
noting I'm not in the legal profession at all).
Google, of it's own accord, lists those sites.
It has a set of guidelines.
Sites in the index should be conforming to those guidelines.
Google has the explicit right theremove thigns from the index... or
display them how it wishes (up to a point).
If it chose to have a new form of result return that it believed may
help it's users - it is entitled to use it.
Imagine the reaction if people went looking for something... and every
so often, one of the results showed up in a red block, wiht some text
stating "potentially spammy" :)
Or even better, the Spam Can Search... it won't remove you from the
index... it will simply put you into a different result set that is
retrieved via a different type of search.
Or a simple Blogg... listing daily some of the sites that get removed
(hell, it's a user feautre -makes it easier to see ifyou have been de-
indexed... and tell you why :) - see, not a negative... it's a useful
tool!!! ROFL)
interesting idea of all using a search term and finding the rule
breakers and reporting them.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4SUNA_enGB258GB25... at least 4 out of the top ten here break the rules in my opinion, some
by just spamming a list of products so the search picks it up, others
by spamming a list of areas so when you use an area in the search term
it picks that up. others have hidden text, one is just a made for
adsense site, and just has a list of advertising sites, a directory
really but for paid ads and a bad one at that. 40% in breach of the
webmaster guidelines i reckon.
> Yup... war on spam time?
> Jsut for a laugh, we could all decide on term/target/sector/word...
> scour through for some spam, and start reporting it.
> I know it seems liek a waste... but for 5 minutes a day... I'm certain
> we could find some juicy ones.
> As to the legal implications... I really don't think there are any
> noting I'm not in the legal profession at all).
> Google, of it's own accord, lists those sites.
> It has a set of guidelines.
> Sites in the index should be conforming to those guidelines.
> Google has the explicit right theremove thigns from the index... or
> display them how it wishes (up to a point).
> If it chose to have a new form of result return that it believed may
> help it's users - it is entitled to use it.
> Imagine the reaction if people went looking for something... and every
> so often, one of the results showed up in a red block, wiht some text
> stating "potentially spammy" :)
> Or even better, the Spam Can Search... it won't remove you from the
> index... it will simply put you into a different result set that is
> retrieved via a different type of search.
> Or a simple Blogg... listing daily some of the sites that get removed
> (hell, it's a user feautre -makes it easier to see ifyou have been de-
> indexed... and tell you why :) - see, not a negative... it's a useful
> tool!!! ROFL)
> Imagine the reaction if people went looking for something... and every
> so often, one of the results showed up in a red block, wiht some text
> stating "potentially spammy" :)
> Yup... war on spam time?
> Jsut for a laugh, we could all decide on term/target/sector/word...
> scour through for some spam, and start reporting it.
> I know it seems liek a waste... but for 5 minutes a day... I'm certain
> we could find some juicy ones.
> As to the legal implications... I really don't think there are any
> noting I'm not in the legal profession at all).
> Google, of it's own accord, lists those sites.
> It has a set of guidelines.
> Sites in the index should be conforming to those guidelines.
> Google has the explicit right theremove thigns from the index... or
> display them how it wishes (up to a point).
> If it chose to have a new form of result return that it believed may
> help it's users - it is entitled to use it.
> Imagine the reaction if people went looking for something... and every
> so often, one of the results showed up in a red block, wiht some text
> stating "potentially spammy" :)
> Or even better, the Spam Can Search... it won't remove you from the
> index... it will simply put you into a different result set that is
> retrieved via a different type of search.
> Or a simple Blogg... listing daily some of the sites that get removed
> (hell, it's a user feautre -makes it easier to see ifyou have been de-
> indexed... and tell you why :) - see, not a negative... it's a useful
> tool!!! ROFL)
This does raise several key questions...
1) How is the algorythm not spotting that sort of thing?
2) How is it not being flagged, especially after being reported?
3) If it was removed (and I believe it was, thus this Topic!), how the
hell does it get back in... like that?
Now I know I'm not known for having a lot of faith in Google... but I
honestly believed that they had taken action and slapped such a site
down... only for it to reappear.... in the same sort of practice that
it was using?
Thats one of the few, small, tiny little bottles of faith I have,
knocked right of the wall :(
Well, I've checked a couple of times, and I'm not seeing it... so
maybe it's filtering through?
(Unless they just blocked my account from seeing it ;))
?
> Well, I've checked a couple of times, and I'm not seeing it... so
> maybe it's filtering through?
> (Unless they just blocked my account from seeing it ;))
> ?
> I am seeing it when clicking the link you posted. I am in Canada.
> I am not seeing it when using the IP address forwww.google.co.ukfor > the same search.
Predictably, then, I don't see it in the UK either.
Has anyone thought of the fact that all leaflet distributors are
spammers _anyway_ irrespective of what they get up to on the web?
Here in the USA, I'm not seeing anything suspicious at google.com or
google.co.uk. My "source" in Canada isn't seeing anything either.
Perhaps the change has made it's way all around the world? well, at
least North America and the UK.
> This does raise several key questions...
> 1) How is the algorythm not spotting that sort of thing?
> 2) How is it not being flagged, especially after being reported?
> 3) If it was removed (and I believe it was, thus this Topic!), how the
> hell does it get back in... like that?
> Now I know I'm not known for having a lot of faith in Google... but I
> honestly believed that they had taken action and slapped such a site
> down... only for it to reappear.... in the same sort of practice that
> it was using?
> Thats one of the few, small, tiny little bottles of faith I have,
> knocked right of the wall :(
|
