92 replies to this topic

[peter_d]

No need to mock me Peter.

Gentle nudge There will always be changes, hence my line "google is the same as it ever was - only better".

Barry's white water analogy is a good one. The universe will always head towards a state of chaos. You can, at best, manage the chaos. Wishing it ordered does not make it so.

[robwatts]

The universe will always head towards a state of chaos. You can, at best, manage the chaos. Wishing it ordered does not make it so

Sounds like a line from Star Trek monsieur Picard.

[compar]

I don't agree with you, compar, when you say:

Google has decided that it is preferable to have automatic filters that will cut out the web pages of the unscrupulous.  I think this is entirely right.

Barry,

Have you seen the blatant example of TOS violation on this thread? There are 1700 plus web sites using this technique. I don't see how you can talk about Google having any active filters while they allow this type of flagrant violation of their TOS to exist.

But in any case that wasn't the main thrust of my post. The main thrust was the ridiculous practice of assigning morality based on compliance with Google's TOS.

[peter_d]

ridiculous practice of assigning morality based on compliance with Google's TOS.

Good post BTW. Agree entirely.

[Jill]

There's a bunch of different things being discussed here (and apparently in other forums too!).

Let's review:

1.) Are Google's results relevant?
2.) Do "spam" pages beat "non-spam" pages in the SERPs?
3.) Does Google care if pages that explicitly don't follow their guidelines rank highly for search queries if they are relevant?
4.) Should spammers go to jail, not pass go and not collect $200?

The main reason for my newsletter article was to discuss #3.

My answers to the other questions would be as follows:

#1. Yes, they're still the best. Sure, other engines have decent results too, but it's rare to not find what you're looking for pretty quickly and easily at Google. (As an aside, elsewhere in this thread someone was talking about how other engines aren't as spammy. Well, duh, why would the spammers bother to waste their time spamming other engines that don't bring much traffic?)

#2. Sometimes spam pages do beat non-spam pages in the SERPs. However, I do tend to hear this complaint more from people who aren't real experienced optimizers. Although it's harder to rank highly in Google these days than it was before, most SEOs that have been doing it for many years are not having any problems. It simply takes a bit longer due to the link factor. Most of the sites I optimize are sites that have been around for many years and already have good links, which makes things even easier for me!

#3. The question of the day. I don't know. Maybe GoogleGuy would like to sign up here and let us know. As my newsletter said, I'm starting to seriously believe that as long as they feel the results are relevant than, no, they certainly don't care about the means that got them there. Hope I'm wrong, however.

#4. Yes.

Anyone else?

Jill

[Bernard]

1.) Are Google's results relevant?
2.) Do "spam" pages beat "non-spam" pages in the SERPs?
3.) Does Google care if pages that explicitly don't follow their guidelines rank highly for search queries if they are relevant?
4.) Should spammers go to jail, not pass go and not collect $200?

• Depends on the search term. Some terms are dominated by one site with spammy doorways / multiple domains. Some terms contain listings that clearly are less relevant than listings appearing further down in the SERPs. Overall, yes, Google is doing a good job with relevance.
• Too many factors to generalize. In some cases yes, in others no.
• I think they care. I'm not sure that they are capable of enforcing their guidelines.
• No, but their pages that don't meet the guidelines should be dropped or the guidelines should be re-written.

BTW, I was the one that mentioned that Teoma results are cleaner that Google's. I'm not convinced that the reason is a lack of targeting on behalf of spammers. Generally, they do not exclude other engines from pages they optimize. While I concede that Teoma is not crawling or indexing as well as Google and this may play a part, I also think their clustering technology/algo is doing a better job of defining relevance.

[qwerty]

While I concede that Teoma is not crawling or indexing as well as Google and this may play a part, I also think their clustering technology/algo is doing a better job of defining relevance.

I agree, Bernard, but I've heard from some people who know more about the technology behind Teoma's clustering (or at least are good at theorizing about it) that if they had an index large enough to compete with Google's it would take too long to process everything in their algo.

[Bernard]

It will be interesting to see if they can overcome that problem if it indeed exists.

[bwelford]

I think they care. I'm not sure that they are capable of enforcing their guidelines.

Bernard, I am 100% with you. Any spam filter will have false positives (it bans web pages it shouldn't ban) and false negatives (it lets through web pages it should ban). I guess the Good Guys want to make sure that there are a very small proportion of false positives. Of course the Bad Guys are hoping there will be lots of false negatives so they can slip through.

It's very tough to figure out how you would develop a good automatic spam filter for say overuse of key words that will ban only a very small fraction of the Good Guys' web pages. There's no obvious simple parameter that can be used IMHO.

So unless someone can stand up and say here is a method that would work and Google is not applying it, then I don't think we can say that Google doesn't care about its TOS so why should anyone else.

[peter_d]

The problem with adding "filters" is the processing overhead involved. Processing costs money. If a tangible benefit for Google isn't there, Google aren't going to add to their costs.

The guidelines page could be viewed as a cost effective filter. Cost: one page of html. Effect: 1,000s of webmasters fall into line without the need to add expensive processing overhead.

[OldWelshGuy]

So i think it is safe to say that, Assuming everyone here are the good guys, and seeing as the general consensus is that what is happening on G is wrong, its fairly safe to say that the bad guys ARE winning

[peter_d]

the bad guys ARE winning

It's not a question of morality.

[SEOCub]

Maybe GoogleGuy would like to sign up here and let us know.

Do you think he will join another forum besides WMW? That would be a coup wouldn't it? Is that what this is about? Super way to throw bait!! Hope he joins soon!!

[Jill]

The guidelines page could be viewed as a cost effective filter. Cost: one page of html. Effect: 1,000s of webmasters fall into line without the need to add expensive processing overhead.

Good point. And even cheaper are people like me and the others at this forum and other forums who consistently tell people not to do the very things that are winning in the SERPs.

If they don't fix things soon (if they are indeed broken), how much longer will we be their pawns?

To be sure, I still believe that doing things on the up and up will always be the best thing for your site, for your users and for long-term success in the engines, but if none of that matters to you, then spamming works.

Jill

[Jill]

Is that what this is about?

Absolutely not!

GG really isn't needed here as noted above...we do their proselytizing for them.



Jill