I also have one spam site example. http://www.google.com/search?q=internet+phone+service
Look at 3rd result for internetphoneguide.org
Google search and search engine spam
201–210 of 223 posts
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide a query where that is still the case ? It hasn't happened for a few weeks for me, since stack overflow changed their title seo.
http://www.google.com/search?q=delayed_job+delay+priority... Stackoverflow comes in at number 8 while clones are 6 and 10
I also have one spam site example. http://www.google.com/search?q=internet+phone+service Look at 3rd result for internetphoneguide.org
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason Google isn't doing the same thing as DuckDuckGo is most likely because manually banning a domain instead of improving their algorithms to avoid unwanted behaviors will only temporarily work, and only in select cases. There will always be new spam and content farm sites.
There seem to be a small number of large content farms (perhaps suggesting economies of scale are pretty important). In this case, manually killing them will work well for Herr. Weinberg.
Over at blekko, we leave in a few large but marginal sites like eHow, and let users kill them with their personal spam slashtags. For smaller spam websites, we can frequently use Adsense IDs to kill them in groups.
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just downrank the results from the SO clones?
Because that wouldn't solve the problem for clones of other sites, or clones in other languages. And the Stack Overflow cloners could just make other websites. That's why a primary instinct in search quality is to look for an algorithmic solution that goes to the root of the problem. That approach works across different languages, sites, and if someone makes new sites. To be clear: the webspam team does reserve the r…
Do you think if Google educates to publishers and web masters to use Rel="Original" , the contents which are similar will be put it as considering set, use this tag as the best practice as similar to Rel Canonical tag that will help Google to identify the original content and make the search quality better?
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#205Why don't we collaboratively blacklist or push down domains from our Google results? This could be a stopgap measure until Google incorporates such a feature including the collaborative database or magically puts an end to spam.
A proposal: http://www.saigonist.com/content/google-spam-content-farm-fi...
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#206The problem isn't just rank though. After I've seen the original source of duplicated content, I don't just want sites that copy it to rank below it, I want to not see them at all, so that the rest of my results are filled with /different/ things.
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt, Can you speak about the possibility for personal domain blacklists for Google accounts? I know giving users the option to remove sites from their own search results is talked about a lot in these HN threads. Is there any talk internally about implementing something like this?
We've definitely discussed this. Our policy in search quality is not to pre-announce things before they launch. If we offer an experiment along those lines, I'll be among the first to show up here and let people know about it. :)
Can you let me know as well
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they're talking about duplicate content so much as stuff like Demand Media (ehow), Associated Content, Hubspot, ezinearticles, etc, etc.
It'll be interesting to see whether Google will take on some of the bigger sites. Add BizRate to the list too (its pages have a 'Related Searches' keyword stuffing section, and 99% of the site is auto-generated), along with WiseGeek: possibly the worst and most spammy content farm I've seen, IMO. I personally am always baffled how some of the really large, spammy sites with low quality content are rewarded with premi…
It is easy to bash sites, but what is Google to do when these sites have even been found useful by users of news.ycombinator.com :
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1454569
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=615832
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=795278
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=592295
the link given in the first example above got 6 upvotes, and there is little info in the post other than the link.
a basic description is all that most web-users want. if you are doing some deep research, then these sites probably aren't good fits, but when you just want a quick overview (which is what most Google users want), then they can be useful.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are a webmaster who sometimes finds that your site(s) rank below the sites that you bash.
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#209"we’re evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content." "As “pure webspam” has decreased over time, attention has shifted instead to “content farms,” which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. In 2010, we launched two major algorithmic changes focused on low-q…
I don't think they're talking about duplicate content so much as stuff like Demand Media (ehow), Associated Content, Hubspot, ezinearticles, etc, etc.
i think you mean hubpages instead of hubspot which is a company that makes internet marketing software for small businesses.
Re: Google search and search engine spam
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they're talking about duplicate content so much as stuff like Demand Media (ehow), Associated Content, Hubspot, ezinearticles, etc, etc.
i think you mean hubpages instead of hubspot which is a company that makes internet marketing software for small businesses.
Arg! You're right, my mistake. I really like Hubspot, too :(