Google search and search engine spam • Hacker News Board

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#21

Post by roadnottaken » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 5:53 PM UTC

powrtoch wrote: post #4

Am I the only one who was really hoping for some specifics about what they're doing and plan to do about content farm rankings? Without that, the article is virtually devoid of content other than "we're really not so bad!" Edit: By specifics, I don't necessarily mean implementation details, just anything more informative and plan-of-action than acknowledging the problem.

As much as I like transparency, I think it's appropriate for Google to keep the details of their search-algorithms secret. Maybe they could do something like "de-classify" the algorithms from a few years ago (this would be cool!) but, in the interest of staying ahead of the spammers, I think it's totally appropriate for them to keep quiet.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#22

Post by SpikeGronim » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 5:55 PM UTC

ddemchuk wrote: post #16

It doesn't appear that Cutts & Co. are looking to address any of the more popular blackhat link building methods that all popular SEO bloggers continually say "work but you shouldn't use them yourself because they're bad". Until the keyword "buy viagra" isn't littered with forum link and comment spam and parasite pages, Google's algo is still not "fixed"

I think that's a bad example. AFAIK you can't legitimately buy Viagra online, so what results should Google be returning? Where are the awesome web pages about Viagra that you want to see? They don't exist, so the query comes back with spam.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#23

Post by Matt_Cutts » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 5:56 PM UTC

ddemchuk wrote: post #16

It doesn't appear that Cutts & Co. are looking to address any of the more popular blackhat link building methods that all popular SEO bloggers continually say "work but you shouldn't use them yourself because they're bad". Until the keyword "buy viagra" isn't littered with forum link and comment spam and parasite pages, Google's algo is still not "fixed"

People can make tens of thousands of dollars a month if they rank highly for certain phrases, so tons of SEOs (and spammers) are trying to rank for phrases like that. Other search engines might hard-code the results for [buy viagra], but Google's first instinct is to use algorithms in these cases, and if you pay attention, the results for queries like that can fluctuate a lot.

With a billion searches a day, I won't claim that we'll get every query right. But just because we don't "solve" one query to your satisfaction doesn't mean we're not working really hard on the problem. It's not an easy problem. :)

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#24

Post by Matt_Cutts » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 5:58 PM UTC

jonpaul wrote: post #20

You know, sometimes it really makes me mad that it's difficult to get into contact with a person at Google for support of their products. But, I've got to hand it to them. They could have issued a non-personal public statement like most companies and signed it with "Google Search Team" But instead there is a personal touch. It's public statements like these that add just a bit of personal touch that makes people love…

It's safe to say that many Googlers read what people write on the web and talk about it internally, even if we don't always respond. We're power users too, so if a search result bothers you, it almost certainly bothers us too. :)

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#25

Post by mbesto » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:00 PM UTC

What are people's thoughts on companies who do create content farms? From the perspective as being a successful company rather than "I hate the spam and I hope they all DIAF".

Personally I think any type of "scheming" in technology will eventually get caught and then all of a sudden there goes your business model.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#26

Post by Matt_Cutts » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:00 PM UTC

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #9

And yet Mahalo is still tolerated, somehow. E.g., this query -- "travel agent vermont" (which I got from this post complaining about Mahalo spamming the web and Google not enforcing its own qc standards http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/2010/03/08/mahalo-com-m... ) still returns a Mahalo result in the top 10.

Google has taken action on Mahalo before and has removed plenty of pages from Mahalo that violated our guidelines in the past. Just because we tend not to discuss specific companies doesn't mean that we've given them any sort of free pass.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#27

Post by lukev » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:00 PM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #17

lukev wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happened to me not ten minutes ago with the search string "pass json body to spring mvc" The efreedom answer at the 5th position is actually the most relevant - the stackoverflow question from which it was copied doesn't even show up on the first page. There is one stackoverflow result on the first page, but it deals with a more complex related issue, not the simple question I was looking for.

to be completely fair, the very first link (from the official springsource blog) also appears to answer your question.

True, it does... I just noticed this because I've actually got in the habit of scanning for stackoverflow results, first - they almost always are right on the money, and it's less cognitive overhead to read a site format I'm familiar with, with extraneous discussion well tucked-away.

It almost feels like a cache miss when I have to drop down to the official site/documentation, since that typically requires a greater time investment to read through to find the relevant sections.

I guess that's a tribute to how well stackoverflow works, most the time. And also to how lazy I am.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#28

Post by Matt_Cutts » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:03 PM UTC

nowarninglabel wrote: post #2

Curious though what the metrics they use to evaluate effectiveness against spam are. It could have just as much (or as little) spam indexed as it had 5 years ago, and in some comparisons that would be valid, but what if much of the spam had moved from being evenly distributed throughout results to being distributed in the top positions? Then, one could say spam was even lower than ever in total quantity, but it would…

I actually feel quite comfortable with our metrics. Back in 2003 or so, we had pretty primitive measures of webspam levels. But the case that you're wondering about (more spam, but in different positions) wouldn't slip past the current metrics.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#29

Post by dpapathanasiou » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #26

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #9

And yet Mahalo is still tolerated, somehow. E.g., this query -- "travel agent vermont" (which I got from this post complaining about Mahalo spamming the web and Google not enforcing its own qc standards http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/2010/03/08/mahalo-com-m... ) still returns a Mahalo result in the top 10.

Google has taken action on Mahalo before and has removed plenty of pages from Mahalo that violated our guidelines in the past. Just because we tend not to discuss specific companies doesn't mean that we've given them any sort of free pass.

Mahalo pages are still in your index.

Do you consider that site to be a quality & non-spam source of information?

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#30

Post by richcollins » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #7

Google has taken a lot of criticism on HN and elsewhere for an apparent perverse incentive, to direct searchers to content farms with adwords, instead of the original source (like StackOverflow or Amazon reviews). I'm skeptical, because spammy-ad clickthrough rates are already low and trending lower, and I speculate google has great incentive to send people where they want to go lest their competitors get stronger.

Although a google with perfect results would kill itself because the ads would be pointless.