Google Spam

edo · Jan 5, 2011

I get the sense that people are beginning to get really tired of thin Adsense or affiliate sites dominating niche Google searches. You've now got mainstream newspapers writing about it (unlike, say, SEO sites like seomoz), which means the tipping point can't be too far off imo:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/jan/04/google-spam

Cheers,

Ed

peter_w · Jan 5, 2011

The newspaper isn't really having a dig at affiliate sites per se, more at sites which scrape content and don't add value to the users experiences.

I think what we all need to be doing more is making sure our sites add some real value to users, rather than just throwing together a quick template with some spun content and an affiliate store. I think we need to be looking closer to the models employed by the likes of tripadvisor for travel, oddschecker for betting, kelkoo for shopping. The kind of models that create websites that are brands in their own right.

Of course, we can still take advantage of exact match keywords and in-links to game the results, but I think we'd all be better off if it was these kind of "added value" sites we were distributing.

Blossom · Jan 5, 2011

Think it will make a big difference if/when Google do what they say they're heading towards & reducing value of exact match names.

Personally I avoid anything obviously affiliate-looking like the plague, I just don't see it as a trustworthy source & would prefer to get cashback & voucher codes than help an anonymous affiliate cash in (sorry).

Bailey · Jan 5, 2011

There are a lot of stories and comments out there. Seeing I already started one thread on the subject I did reframe from posting any further threads but, techcrunch have a good and active following. so I will add this one to your thread if you don't mind

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/01/why-we-desperately-need-a-new-and-better-google-2/

This article focuses more on the solutions being put forward by other 'search providers' the problem with most is that they become over overly-selective. I do agree with Peter in that the 'end game' may well be in concentrating on one or two key areas/subjects of knowledge.

There are still those today professing the 'stick any thing up' technique to get indexed. The rapid growth of online sales was always going to bring about equally fast changes to anyone 'shirt-tailing' the internet (and I consider myself in that group)

mally · Jan 5, 2011

Wonder if the company behind "SPAM" enjoy getting loads and loads of publicity for FREE!

edo · Jan 5, 2011

Totally agree Peter. In the long run you've got to offer Google something of value other than a bit of new content and Adsense clickthroughs.

Google have always seemed to me pretty good at long-term strategy and while they're undoubtedly coining it in from Adsense revenue right now, a profileration of "spammy" sites at the apex of the SERPS doesn't fit their overall aim to give the user the best possible searching experience (and therefore stick with Google).

I envisage a web in 10 years time of High Street brands dominating the first page of pretty much every commercial search term. Small sites with exact-match domains won't even get a look in. Which is why we should all make hay while the sun is shining.

Not a fan of Blekko either, Bailey. Just seems to be a slightly different take on DMoz or Yahoo Directory, which no one really uses these days other than for SEO juice.

Cheers,

Ed

kendalcottages · Jan 5, 2011

I don't think affiliate sites should all be regarded as spam. It really depends on what they do... whether they come at the subject from a particular angle, or offer something really useful. If they do, then I think there's a place for them. If they don't and they're just thrown together in 20 minutes, then sure... I'd sooner not see them in the results.

johnnyboy · Jan 6, 2011

I just don't see why Google and other search engines don't put a lot more weighting on relevant, decent backlinks than it currently does. If an affiliate site has crap content or doesn't bring anything useful or of value to Internet users, no one is going to link to it, meaning it won't appear in SERPs for keywords it's targeting. Simple solution or am I missing something?

Sanjana · Jan 6, 2011

if you are accessing adsence and affiliate link on your sites too much thats why google search will not consider too much.

Frog · Jan 6, 2011

johnnyboy said:
I just don't see why Google and other search engines don't put a lot more weighting on relevant, decent backlinks than it currently does. If an affiliate site has crap content or doesn't bring anything useful or of value to Internet users, no one is going to link to it, meaning it won't appear in SERPs for keywords it's targeting. Simple solution or am I missing something?

The rampant buying and selling of the relevant, decent backlinks that power these algorithms?

kendalcottages · Jan 6, 2011

Sanjana said:
if you are accessing adsence and affiliate link on your sites too much thats why google search will not consider too much.

I am not aware that accessing your Adsense (or the publishing of it for that matter) will have any effect on your performance in the SERPs.

Frog · Jan 6, 2011

kendalcottages said:
I am not aware that accessing your Adsense (or the publishing of it for that matter) will have any effect on your performance in the SERPs.

It won't.

The only way using Adsense could harm you is if you get a manual review, and they realise you've no content on your site, or you've used Adsense in such a spammy way that its bad for the user experience.

But if you're already on a manual review, you'd be in equally as much trouble if your site was spammily monetized with Yahoo paid ads, Clickbank ads, or anything else.

johnnyboy · Jan 6, 2011

Frog said:
The rampant buying and selling of the relevant, decent backlinks that power these algorithms?

I've had no real experience in buying links but I'm guessing links that are sold on mass are nowhere near as effective or relevant as natural links to a site. I'm sure if I bought a bunch of links today to link to, say for example, a TV site, there would be link in there from a site informing its visitors (if it had any) of how to style their pubic hair like Jedward. This is why I would never buy links, no matter how big or small my sites were, as it's a waste of money.

peter_w · Jan 6, 2011

It's only a waste of money if you don't know what you're doing. Show me any SERP for a major commercial (finance sector, travel sector, gambling etc) keyword and I'll show you 5 out of the top 10 ranking sites are buying links.

johnnyboy said:
I've had no real experience in buying links but I'm guessing links that are sold on mass are nowhere near as effective or relevant as natural links to a site. I'm sure if I bought a bunch of links today to link to, say for example, a TV site, there would be link in there from a site informing its visitors (if it had any) of how to style their pubic hair like Jedward. This is why I would never buy links, no matter how big or small my sites were, as it's a waste of money.

johnnyboy · Jan 6, 2011

Isn't this what Google is trying to cut down on? Any fool with lots of cash can buy thousands of links, it still doesn't really help the average Internet user find what they want if the links to a site are not relevant.

I wonder what the bounce rate is like on most of those sites?

peter_w said:
It's only a waste of money if you don't know what you're doing. Show me any SERP for a major commercial (finance sector, travel sector, gambling etc) keyword and I'll show you 5 out of the top 10 ranking sites are buying links.

Frog · Jan 6, 2011

In a way, it doesn't do as much harm as Google would like people to believe. You can't buy links to rank a garbage site, because you end up losing a fortune when you can't convert the visitors.

The site with the better products, service and prices will ultimately be able to buy more, and better, links (all other things being equal) and they will be the ones who rank.

There are some circumstances where thats not the case (an seo company who scams you can afford to spend more on links as they're not actually doing any real work for example)

johnnyboy · Jan 6, 2011

Frog said:
In a way, it doesn't do as much harm as Google would like people to believe. You can't buy links to rank a garbage site, because you end up losing a fortune when you can't convert the visitors.

The site with the better products, service and prices will ultimately be able to buy more, and better, links (all other things being equal) and they will be the ones who rank.

This is where natural links plays it's part.

Frog · Jan 6, 2011

Its only getting harder and harder to get natural links though. Like Peter says, I bet you can't show a competitive phrase where half of the first page aren't actively buying links. And the ones that aren't will be ranking on the basis of being a massive brand already.

crazihos · Jan 6, 2011

This is where natural links plays it's part

What is a natural link though and how does google know?

For example is a natural link where a blog owner likes your site and writes a review about it on their blog?

If so whos to say you didnt give the blog owner a tenner to write that review? Google doesnt know if you paid or not half the time which is how big firms get away with it.