57 replies to this topic

[Jill]

I missed this one last week. Danny's interesting take on the search engines and how they handle (or don't handle) spam.

Spam Rules Require Effective Spam Police.

Our own "SearchRank" David Wallace gets a mention, as well as Aaron Wall's BlackHat SEO site!



Jill

[Alan Perkins]

Spam Rules Require Effective Spam Police

The article didn't address why search engine spam is a problem. Nor did it discuss much who the "police" should be.

Given that much search engine spam amounts to deceptive advertising, shouldn't the "police" be national authorities such as the FTC? And aren't the spam rules (or "laws") covered by laws of deceptive advertising?

If the search engines aren't brave enough to enforce their own laws, why should the onus be on a third party group that doesn't even create these rules?

It's almost as if search engines invented search engine spam and if they chose to not see a problem then it wouldn't be a problem. Therefore, it's up to the search engines alone to police it. I don't agree with that position. They are not solely the search engines' laws.

[Jbrookins]

I would disagree on that one. Government enforcement means that government regulation would be involved. We already know they're bloody clueless already, but having the FTC do it would get lawyers involved. With that, certain types of spammers could argue IN COURT that their spam is actually relevant or fair. It would only take one to set a legal precedent.

Search is an open market, which keeps it competitive and relevant. It's up to the engines to do their own policing, not an out of touch government beauracracy.

[Jill]

Alan, very few people see search engine spam as deceptive advertising, which is why the article would not address it as such. (Even I will need another 6 months to a year to mull over that one before I come around! )

I'm still of the opinion that it's the search engine's game, and it's up to them to show what they want to show and not show what they don't want to show.

They are either incapable of completely fighting spam and/or they are much more tolerant of spam than some of us are. I believe that their definitions of spam are a lot less clear than our own definitions as evidenced by what they allow in their indices, even when it's pointed out to them as probably being spam.

To me, their inaction to do anything about so much of what we think of as spam, speaks volumes.

Jill

[Alan Perkins]

Government enforcement means that government regulation would be involved

Government regulation is involved. We are talking about advertising and marketing. There are laws covering that industry. See, for example, the FTC's Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: Rules of the Road.

I'm still of the opinion that it's the search engine's game, and it's up to them to show what they want to show and not show what they don't want to show.

That's not strictly true. For example, what do you make of the CommercialAlert complaint to the FTC and the FTC's findings and recommendations as a result?

[SearchRank]

I liken fighting spam to fighting drug dealers. You nab one and two to three more pop up. I have seen search engines punish spammers but it seems they try to do it by developing automatic filters and the like rather than individually.

It would be nice if each search engine had a small staff that investigated individual spam cases and where it is extreme, punish them! Maybe they do but with all the spam that appears in the SERPs and spammers we know about that get away with it, it sure doesn't seem like they do.

[Jill]

For example, what do you make of the CommercialAlert complaint to the FTC and the FTC's findings and recommendations as a result?

Can't say that I've read it all to be able to effectively comment. Will try to do that one of these days though!

Jill

[Alan Perkins]

Can't say that I've read it all to be able to effectively comment.

In summary, it is possible for deceptive advertising to take place in search results, and the FTC has an interest and role in examining the prominence, placement, position and proximity of listings to ensure that deceptive advertising is not taking place.

Where that interest begins and ends is open to question. Personally, I see little difference between a search engine deceiving its searchers directly and a webmaster deceiving a search engine in order to deceive its searchers to the same degree indirectly. As far as the searcher is concerned they are being deceived either way, and the FTC is concerned with protecting the searcher from deception.

[Jill]

Then does it follow that by allowing spam (especially spam that the engine's have been alerted to) they are themselves taking part in deceptive advertising?

Jill

[Jbrookins]

I would say that the FTC enforcing deceptive advertising laws and policing search engines for spam would be two completely different (though interconnected) issues.

The FTC does hit businesses who lie about what they're doing online, but to extend the umbrella to general spam would take away the SE's ability to define it's own definition of spam and make it contestable in court.

Deceptive business practices and spam are not always the same thing, though both are quite unethical. A good lawyer would probably be able to argue that uncertainty of user intent makes vague relevance acceptable or that those link farms might actually be useful to someone, or that using cloaking is a practical way of reinforcing the purpose of the site while not interfering with the user's experience (and wouldn't break any labor, accountability, or safety regulations).

Maybe it's just me being having moderate libertarian leanings, but imho, the less government is involved, the less chance lawyers have of making a bad situation worse. Prosecute liars and frauds, but leave the SPAM policing to the SEs. After all, if they fail horribly, they'll go out of business in a display of the ultimate policing, brand divorce.

[Alan Perkins]

Then does it follow that by allowing spam (especially spam that the engine's have been alerted to) they are themselves taking part in deceptive advertising?

Yes, IMO. OTOH search engines do more to eradicate this deceptive advertising than any party representing webmasters, marketers, searchers or government.

I would say that the FTC enforcing deceptive advertising laws and policing search engines for spam would be two completely different (though interconnected) issues.

OK, that's your opinion.

To illustrate why I disagree, consider these three sample search results for "widgets".

Sample A
1. Fred's Widgets
The best widgets anywhere.
www.fredswidgets.com

Sample B
1. Fred's Widgets
The best widgets anywhere.
www.fredswidgets.com

Sample C
1. Fred's Widgets
The best widgets anywhere.
www.fredswidgets.com

The difference between them? Sample A spammed its way to the top, sample B paid its way to the top, and sample C deserved its top placement on merit (i.e., using the FTC's terminology, on objective relevancy measures).

According to the FTC, Sample B is an advertisement and is subject to advertising laws. Sample C is not an advertisement.

The FTC has never considered Sample A - yet. Sample A is placed for commercial purposes and its placement is not based on merit. IMO, there is no question that it is an advertisement. Many spammers even sell their listings as advertisements, with payment on a CPC basis. IMO, there is also no question that Sample A's placement is deceptive (since it is not based on merit, c.f. paid placement). Therefore, IMO, there is no question that Sample A is a deceptive advertisement.

[Jill]

So, what methods of spam got Sample A to its top placement? And who decides if it was actually spam or perhaps SEO? (Waiting for Peter_D's entrance )

Jill

[Alan Perkins]

So, what methods of spam got Sample A to its top placement? And who decides if it was actually spam or perhaps SEO?

According to the article, "Clearly, knowing what's widely considered spam isn't hard."

[mcanerin]

The problem with "out" lists is that, to my great regret, they usually don't work.

For example, spamhaus offers a list of the 200 or so worst email spammers in the world, along with a ton of evidence and information on each one.

And yet I keep getting email from these jerks every day. Short of announcing their personal home address alongside a substantial bounty and a place to get unregistered weapons, I don't see this list helping to lower the amount of spam around.

And, inspite of the ocassional short fantasy while watching my Junk Folders rapidly fill with prepetrators of bandwidth theft, I DON'T recommend actually killing spammers (wacking them repeatedly tins of spam perhaps) .

The problem would be that the people who are most likely to use a "black hat" either know full well what they are doing (and don't care) or are too clueless to know what to avoid - which precludes them from checking a database. After all, how many victims of brick and mortar businesses *actually* check the BBB before buying a donut or getting their tire changed? Heck most people don't check when buying a car worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Laws (and rules) can be a "sword" or a "shield". In practice, the best rules employ both aspects - protect and punish. It's been my observation that rules that attempt to just address one aspect are often ineffective.

It would seem that a publicly available blacklist would be both, but in practice very few people would check it, and spammers are usually enured to being called scum (they hear it a lot). So it fails on both points.

However, to continue with the example, Spamhous and other sites like it offer "real" blacklists that can be connected to email servers for very effective protection (sometimes TOO effective, but that's a separate issue). I think for a SE spam list to work it would have to be incorporated into a feed for the SE's to filter out, just like email spam.

Imagine for a moment the following:

You go to your favorite search engine and do a search. Crap and more crap. But up at the top is a nifty button that says [Apply Spam Filter]. You push that button and the search is done again, but this time any sites in the blacklist are removed. You even get a count at the top of the SERP that says *41 known SE Spammers Removed* - kind of like the pop-up blocker counter

Now THAT I'd be interested in.

Ian

[Jill]

Hmmm....Ian....that sounds like it could be some sort of toolbar function that someone could program!

One of the mega-spam hater SEOs could help give their idea of what spam is to the programmer and they plug it into the tool. Someone go call Dougie quick!

Jill