Comments on: Feedback: Webspam in 2006? http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/ neat fun stuff Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:13:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sean Hakes http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-107197 Sean Hakes Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:14:41 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-107197 Hi Matt, thanks for posting this... As a few others mentioned above I am a bit sick of seeing subdomain spam. I hate doing a web search and see the same site with 30 different sub domains pop up for the same result with duplicate content. Annoys the heck out of me. Is there any plans on reducing sub domain spam??? Thanks in advance! Hi Matt, thanks for posting this… As a few others mentioned above I am a bit sick of seeing subdomain spam. I hate doing a web search and see the same site with 30 different sub domains pop up for the same result with duplicate content. Annoys the heck out of me. Is there any plans on reducing sub domain spam??? Thanks in advance!

]]> By: Catalin http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-52037 Catalin Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:12:23 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-52037 Hi Matt, I'm stunned to see that tons of seo spam reports remain with no result! The sites are yet indexed and gain good SERP's DUE TO SPAM. An example is http://www.anunturipenet.ro, which practice one of the most basic form of SPAM: text displayed with background color. For exapmle, go to http://www.anunturipenet.ro/anunturi/auto/ (just one of the site pages) and press CTRL+A. You will see the following text (repeated) written with HUGE characters: "dacia vanzari auto autoturisme piese auto auto second hand alarme auto piata auto auto masini second hand vanzare masini masini.ro masini motociclete harti". It would be nice that Google intentions to clean it's index from these kind of crap sites to be sustained by actions. So please remove this site which does not honour the .ro tld! Cheers! Hi Matt,

I’m stunned to see that tons of seo spam reports remain with no result! The sites are yet indexed and gain good SERP’s DUE TO SPAM. An example is http://www.anunturipenet.ro, which practice one of the most basic form of SPAM: text displayed with background color. For exapmle, go to http://www.anunturipenet.ro/anunturi/auto/ (just one of the site pages) and press CTRL+A. You will see the following text (repeated) written with HUGE characters: “dacia vanzari auto autoturisme piese auto auto second hand alarme auto piata auto auto masini second hand vanzare masini masini.ro masini motociclete harti”.

It would be nice that Google intentions to clean it’s index from these kind of crap sites to be sustained by actions. So please remove this site which does not honour the .ro tld!

Cheers!

]]> By: Kim http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-38060 Kim Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:37:20 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-38060 Relegate the status of subdirectories, to make them equal to subdomains in terms of how the links are valued. It's too easy to make lots of subdirectories and interlink them to fake link popularity. Better detection of randomly generated text like this: Learn all about $variable. Search our site for the best info about $variable, and the best $variable links. You need to be able to take the highest-density keywords, assign them as a variable, and then put the pages through the dupe filter once more. You should do this automatically for every site over 1000 pages. I think that would go some way towards weeding out auto-generated spam. Relegate the status of subdirectories, to make them equal to subdomains in terms of how the links are valued. It’s too easy to make lots of subdirectories and interlink them to fake link popularity.

Better detection of randomly generated text like this:

Learn all about $variable. Search our site for the best info about $variable, and the best $variable links.

You need to be able to take the highest-density keywords, assign them as a variable, and then put the pages through the dupe filter once more. You should do this automatically for every site over 1000 pages. I think that would go some way towards weeding out auto-generated spam.

]]> By: Everett Sizemore http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-23951 Everett Sizemore Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:59:30 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-23951 I hate this CRAP: http://officetime.thespeciousreport.com/health-and-fitness-business.htm And it's all because of Google Ad Sense. I think it's great to monetize the Internet, but you need to find a way to get this JUNK out of your index because it is destroying your credibiliy. No joke. No exageration. I hate this CRAP:

http://officetime.thespeciousreport.com/health-and-fitness-business.htm

And it’s all because of Google Ad Sense. I think it’s great to monetize the Internet, but you need to find a way to get this JUNK out of your index because it is destroying your credibiliy. No joke. No exageration.

]]> By: Dar http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-18148 Dar Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:22:04 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-18148 One link system that has me concerned is the links coming out of Wikipedia.Org, the outgoing links have grown 10 fold over the past few months. I was reading a Wiki decision about nofollow and rel nofollow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow the comments made by some of the members were very shocking, "We should boost the reputation of good sites we link to." and (one comment about spammer's not being very smart, was unbelivable) I looked in our corner of the web and plain as day 3 notorious spammers, Wow, now they have links from a PR9 I don't think these people understand spam. Google Yahoo and MSN please remove the values associated with their links or teach them about spam. One link system that has me concerned is the links coming out of Wikipedia.Org, the outgoing links have grown 10 fold over the past few months. I was reading a Wiki decision about nofollow and rel nofollow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow the comments made by some of the members were very shocking, “We should boost the reputation of good sites we link to.” and (one comment about spammer’s not being very smart, was unbelivable) I looked in our corner of the web and plain as day 3 notorious spammers, Wow, now they have links from a PR9 I don’t think these people understand spam. Google Yahoo and MSN please remove the values associated with their links or teach them about spam.

]]> By: EarnTopBucks.com http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-17853 EarnTopBucks.com Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:13:34 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-17853 If you took a closer look to websites with keyword density of 15%+ you would wipe out 99% of the spam out there . And I have a lame question ? How can a webpage rank for a keyword it does not contain (thanks to links) ??? That simply kills my last trace of logic . I , for one , don't think you will ever be able to handle spam as you would be killing your own AdSense profits . This is the sad truth . PS: Yes , I'm an ocasional spammer ! If you took a closer look to websites with keyword density of 15%+ you would wipe out 99% of the spam out there .
And I have a lame question ? How can a webpage rank for a keyword it does not contain (thanks to links) ??? That simply kills my last trace of logic .
I , for one , don’t think you will ever be able to handle spam as you would be killing your own AdSense profits . This is the sad truth .

PS: Yes , I’m an ocasional spammer !

]]> By: Adam G http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-16456 Adam G Fri, 03 Mar 2006 23:42:35 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-16456 I think google should penalise or ban sites with hidden text (keywords) and links at the bottom of the page. I see this done on plenty of web pages with many pagebreaks or tags and then keywords at the bottom, hidden from normal users monitor size. I think google should penalise or ban sites with hidden text (keywords) and links at the bottom of the page. I see this done on plenty of web pages with many pagebreaks or tags and then keywords at the bottom, hidden from normal users monitor size.

]]> By: Wit http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-16420 Wit Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:48:08 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-16420 8PM EST today! {tick-tock} I thought I should warn people. Sorry for the double post BTW. And oh yeah, I would really like to have all "My web diary"-type blogs banned to an unspidered alternate Internet universe. When I'm searching for something (important) I'm really not interested in some Joe Schmoe's comment on my search object. No: I want genuine info, like price comparisons, technical specs, unbiased reports etc.... If I want to read somebody's personal rantings, I'll type in his/her blog address or hit the bookmark instead. Sheesh. (Ouch, does this make me a web0.8 person?) 8PM EST today! {tick-tock} I thought I should warn people. Sorry for the double post BTW.

And oh yeah, I would really like to have all “My web diary”-type blogs banned to an unspidered alternate Internet universe. When I’m searching for something (important) I’m really not interested in some Joe Schmoe’s comment on my search object. No: I want genuine info, like price comparisons, technical specs, unbiased reports etc….

If I want to read somebody’s personal rantings, I’ll type in his/her blog address or hit the bookmark instead. Sheesh.

(Ouch, does this make me a web0.8 person?)

]]> By: Michael VanDeMar http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-16286 Michael VanDeMar Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:28:10 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-16286 Well, although this would take some cooperation, what about getting together with Yahoo and MSN, and sharing a list of banned sites? I'm not saying automatically ban just because someone else does, but it could be used as an indicator. This would reduce duplication of effort, and allow easier finding of sites that were banned due to a spam report. Flagged sites could then be given a higher priority to check them, either manually or with a more intensive algorithm that is too heavy to run on all sites. Well, although this would take some cooperation, what about getting together with Yahoo and MSN, and sharing a list of banned sites? I’m not saying automatically ban just because someone else does, but it could be used as an indicator. This would reduce duplication of effort, and allow easier finding of sites that were banned due to a spam report. Flagged sites could then be given a higher priority to check them, either manually or with a more intensive algorithm that is too heavy to run on all sites.

]]> By: Kenneth http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/feedback-webspam/#comment-15831 Kenneth Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:29:32 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=162#comment-15831 I don't think anyone at Google, meaning a human, actually penalizes sites which clearly violate their webmaster guidelines. If so, I'd like to know. After over a year of submitting half a dozen or so Spam Reports, I have found that the spamming domains are still there. No amount of adjusting algorithms by some engineer can remove sites which persistently fool Google. My spam reports regard mirror sites with the same domain name, but only the ending change. In other words, dot com, dot co.uk, dot org.uk, dot net. The same sites are listed. Checking Google's cache of any of the sites I've reported show only a term, click here to view the site, and no other information. Google needs to index only sites which have content not some click here to view the site gimmick. I'm beginning to think that Google isn't the best search engine afterall, and by striving to list everything, they still allow spamming domains of mirror sites. In the instances I reported, the "society" was actually legally dissolved in 2003 and yet reports to Google of that fact hasn't changed anything. Worst of all, the dot com domain now is ranked #2, and in Google China and Google Norway search results, for instance, the results show the dot com domain/site twice. Isn't that spam also. It would be better to remove the offending sites altogether. There is no reason why Google should persist in listing, and rewarding, spam domains. I don’t think anyone at Google, meaning a human, actually penalizes sites which clearly violate their webmaster guidelines. If so, I’d like to know. After over a year of submitting half a dozen or so Spam Reports, I have found that the spamming domains are still there. No amount of adjusting algorithms by some engineer can remove sites which persistently fool Google.

My spam reports regard mirror sites with the same domain name, but only the ending change. In other words, dot com, dot co.uk, dot org.uk, dot net. The same sites are listed. Checking Google’s cache of any of the sites I’ve reported show only a term, click here to view the site, and no other information. Google needs to index only sites which have content not some click here to view the site gimmick.

I’m beginning to think that Google isn’t the best search engine afterall, and by striving to list everything, they still allow spamming domains of mirror sites. In the instances I reported, the “society” was actually legally dissolved in 2003 and yet reports to Google of that fact hasn’t changed anything.

Worst of all, the dot com domain now is ranked #2, and in Google China and Google Norway search results, for instance, the results show the dot com domain/site twice. Isn’t that spam also. It would be better to remove the offending sites altogether. There is no reason why Google should persist in listing, and rewarding, spam domains.

]]>