Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    From GoogleGuy:
    "Regarding spam reports, we've been putting more effort lately into scalable spam algorithms and less into individual reports. You should see that bearing fruit relatively soon, and then we can go back and do another iteration using newer spam reports as training data"

    I personally don't worry about what other sites are doing, i always just figure one day the algo will get them. I also read that only 2% of spam reports get anything done about them. What some people consider SPAM, Google doesn't, it's gotta be pretty serious and blatant: cloaking, hidden text, etc. As far as hidden text it seems you need to have some serious hidden text to get banned, not just a line or 2. It's always good to play by the rules so you don't have to worry about these things. Just imagine how many SPAM reports Google gets each day. They are going to let the algo take care of it and not waste valuable man hours on this. A better way is to just email somebody you think is spamming with the url you think is spam and tell them to remove it or you will file a spam report on them. This will get a better response as i think filing spam reports with Google is a waste of time, as i'm sure they have a backlog of complaints they would rather just have the algo handle.

    Shake your booty

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    190
    The should be called Jealousy Reports.

    Personally, I think people that file 'Spam' reports are lower than worms.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    51
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spacewar:
    The should be called Jealousy Reports.

    Personally, I think people that file 'Spam' reports are lower than worms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You've got to be kidding. If some site is getting top positioning in Google because they are using hidden text and hidden links, or due to cloaking, then they are de-valueing Google.

    If the results aren't clearly based on the content of the site, then the site should be reported over and over and over, until Google removes them, or changes the algorhythm to knock them out.

    People that cheat to get results instead of just building good sites are the ones that are lower than worms.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> People that cheat to get results instead of just building good sites are the ones that are lower than worms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yeah, but what is cheating? If google designed its algorithm to favor and reward 'spam' sites (over my high quality sites), then the definition we are using here is incorrect (in google's eyes).

    In other words Google often penalizes good sites in order to favor 'spam' sites. So who's fault is that?

  5. #5
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    354
    Spamming infringes on the fair competition rights of a competitor

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    190
    I don't buy this idea that people file spam reports because they want to improve the quality of the search results. Who goes searching for 'spam' in sectors they are not competing in? Why not, if they are interested in the quality of the index? They report sites that are beating them in the SE rankings.
    --
    Btw, I'm not a spammer, I just don't buy the bullsh*t about reporting spam to improve the index, oh pleeeeease..

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    51
    I report sites that are above me in the search results when it is obvious they are there due to cheating, meaning hidden text, hidden links, etc.

    I honestly can't understand why someone would have a problem with reporting sites that really are cheating, unless you use the same techniques.

    Google clearly defines what are inappropriate techniques. If someone is stupid enought to use those techniques to try and manipulate Google, then they deserve to be ratted on.

    What is the good of working hard to build good content and good links if you stand back and let crummy sites with no content beat you based on cheating.

    Stand up and fight for yourself.

    Everyone must play by the same rules. Either we all use hidden text and hidden links and cloaking...or no one can.

    The first option completely invalidates the Google goal of quality search results for the consumer.

    It's clear what has to happen. People that cheat must be dealt with.

  8. #8
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Wake up and support Google's anti-spamming policy or the alternatives will be the new parasitic forces like Looksmart and the folks at OverTure. If you can't make a site worth a bookmark...then don't make it.

    Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't buy this idea that people file spam reports because they want to improve the quality of the search results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    The other night, I was looking for something to purchase, and I kept getting spammy sites that didn't even have the item available to sell!

    The links I clicked to buy the item took me to merchant pages that didn't offer the item, and probably never have. So, the results being returned by Google were not relevant in any way. I wanted to buy something specific, I searched for it, and couldn't buy it because of spammy affiliate sites.

    I finally found a content site on page 3 or 4 of the results that actually had a link to the exact item I wanted. I had to wade through 2 pages of garbage (and the resultant pop-ups they spawned!) to get to what I wanted. One of them was even trying to force a Gator download on me!

    Those types of sites make all of us look bad, and I hope they get buried so far down in the results that NO ONE finds them!

    Andy

    AFFILIATE MARKETING STANDARD: The site upon which the initial action to buy occurs is the site the commission is paid to. Period.

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    Be careful of what you wish for. A lot of search engine 'spam' is done by affiliate sites. The easiest way to eliminate it using an algorithm would be to drop sites with affiliate links.

    Google knows what it is doing. If it ignores hidden text etc, then hidden text is not cheating.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    51
    Affiliate sites that use hidden text should be knocked out of the Google index, or at least knocked down to page 100 and beyond.

    Google won't make the decision based on affiliate links, they will make the decision based on CONTENT.

    Who knows when Google will finally modify the algorhythm to knock out sites using hidden text? They've said point blank on their site that that technique is BAD. They clearly don't like it because it clearly manipulates search results.

    If you use that technique, you are at risk to have your site knocked out of Google every time there is a monthly algorhythm change.

    I am going to continue to send spam reports every single time I find a site that cheats to get good search results.

    One of these days the people that run those sites are going to be screaming and crying. And those of us with quality sites and quality content are going to do even better by having the scum disappear.

  12. #12
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I don't understand the fuss.

    Would you be happier if all sites converted their hidden text into visible text? Wouldn't they still be ranked higher than you?

  13. #13
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Andy you are so right ..."The links I clicked to buy the item took me to merchant pages that didn't offer the item, and probably never have. So, the results being returned by Google were not relevant in any way. I wanted to buy something specific, I searched for it, and couldn't buy it because of spammy affiliate sites."

    Affiliates who know their sites suck for sales will try any trick they can come up with to sett a cookie and spamm the SE's. They offer no value to their merchants and just seek a way to trick shoppers with lies and deceptive listings to make a buck the easy way. Just remember all B-a-HO's are affiliates who also refuse to add any value to the merchants from their pages.

    Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    57
    Gee wiz, there seems to be alot of "in-fighting" amongst affiliates lately.

    As far as search rankings it is up to Google to deal with their algo & SERPs.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Be careful of what you wish for. A lot of search engine 'spam' is done by affiliate sites. The easiest way to eliminate it using an algorithm would be to drop sites with affiliate links.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Yup

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,916
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Be careful of what you wish for. A lot of search engine 'spam' is done by affiliate sites. The easiest way to eliminate it using an algorithm would be to drop sites with affiliate links.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Yup... A lot of people on ABW too.. I see link exchange threads all the time... spam!...

    Also, as more and more of these yahoos setup more and more sites with these stupid scripts which make using a datafeed something that a monkey could do, I think we may begin to see that happening... I saw one guy in here post for help on every single one of the current datafeed scripts on here... I'm sure some people have more than one site running each one.. People are getting more savvy and are getting fed up when they search for products and 100 copies of the saem thing comes up ...

    I agree though, the blatant stuff sucks. 100's of crosslinked domains, hidden keywords, etc. Cloaked pages when the real page serves a 302 to something else..

    I don't really report it, because it seems like Google doesn't read them, and they'd rather programatically eliminate spam. I don't see anything wrong with people filling out the report for this stuff, though...


    I think most of the stuff that gets reported is stuff like hidden keywords which really don't help that much anyway, and, if they're on topic, well its still spam by most definitions, but, is it that bad? I'd never do it because I don't believe it helps much...and inevitably people will see it, and it looks unprofessional...



    ----
    -J
    Merchants: Do you realize that some of your affiliates are being paid commission on sales which you have paid for via PPC, offline advertising, and your targeted mailings?

  16. #16
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,797
    The problem with automated spam filters is that it is difficult to determine what they should do and how they should work. Pretty much all the onpage spam stuff is legitimate html and coding techniques used illegitimately (ie: hidden layers, alt. tag stuffing, etc.) If you set the filter too tight, Google will hit many sites that aren't spamming.

    I guess they will concentrate on odd linking patterns more than the onpage stuff.

    Search Engine Positioning - 1 Design 4 Life

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    190
    It makes me laugh, all those affiliates reporting each other - "There's SPAM above me on GOOGLE!"
    SEO and spam - it's just a question of degree, I guess the automated filters determine where the line is.
    In a way, affiliate sites are all spam, filling up the engines with pointless pages and links when all anyone wants is a merchant.

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,916
    yup.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    57
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"There's SPAM above me on GOOGLE!"
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    ROTFLMAO

    SPAM is what you make it. Good SEO or SPAM. Who knows except Googlebot?

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In a way, affiliate sites are all spam, filling up the engines with pointless pages and links when all anyone wants is a merchant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    In a way.... Yup

  20. #20
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Also, as more and more of these yahoos setup more and more sites with these stupid scripts which make using a datafeed something that a monkey could do, I think we may begin to see that happening... I saw one guy in here post for help on every single one of the current datafeed scripts on here... I'm sure some people have more than one site running each one.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ooh, sour grapes! Whatsa matter, can't your db-done-the-old-way pages compete?

    If you can get good listings then whether what's under you is a bunch of script-generated pages or not shouldn't bother you.

    -Early in life, I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change. ~ Frank Lloyd Wright

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,916



    Thats not really my point... but..
    ----
    -J
    Merchants: Do you realize that some of your affiliates are being paid commission on sales which you have paid for via PPC, offline advertising, and your targeted mailings?

  22. #22
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    246
    It's the easiest thing to safely create hidden text - and there isn't a damn thing Google can do about it, not now, not in the future. Except manual reviews. But reciprocal linking, keyword stuffing or affiliate sites in general should be easy to take down.

    Another point is that it's sufficient to use 8 pix text and put it at the bottom of the page, noone would bother to look at it anyway. So using hidden text is pretty stupid even if one feel one have to add some extra keywords. Of course, we have all seen pages making the most out of it, having more hidden text than visible text.

    It will be very interesting to see how hard the axe will drop from Google. Thanks for the update, NoTrust.


    Spam complaining concerned, my take on that is in
    http://abw.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&...9&m=2156072502

    -- Less is more --

  23. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Google eBooks affiliate program wants unconditional access to CREDIT REPORTS
    By concerned affiliate in forum Google Affiliate Network - GAN
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 11th, 2011, 04:50 PM
  2. Many Google Affiliate Network Merchant emails go to Google Gmail Spam Folder
    By Vrindavan in forum Google Affiliate Network - GAN
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 18th, 2008, 04:16 PM
  3. google reports
    By rocketrocket in forum Google Affiliate Network - GAN
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 10:38 AM
  4. Does Google Consider This Spam?
    By Trust in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 31st, 2003, 03:39 PM
  5. Would Google think this is spam ?
    By crazydp in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2002, 10:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •