Comments on: I submitted my spam report http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/ Terrible writing and mere conjecture Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:17:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: S E O dot com » JLH Design Blog http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-3637 S E O dot com » JLH Design Blog Fri, 18 May 2007 08:48:38 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-3637 [...] an effort to justify defend the existence of paid directories he wrote: I’ll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When [...] [...] an effort to justify defend the existence of paid directories he wrote: I’ll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When [...]

]]> By: Terabanito http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-3350 Terabanito Fri, 04 May 2007 04:26:28 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-3350 Hello You are The Best!!! Bye Hello
You are The Best!!!
Bye

]]> By: 10000 directories http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1526 10000 directories Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:08:48 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1526 Funny post. Nice :) Firstly they can't control click fraud on adsense without a "Report Abuse" link, now they can't control links without a "Report Abuse" link. Great! They are doing really well. Google Earth has bombed and they introduce stupid things that only get abused by cunning webmasters (eg:Google base) when 99% of internet users have never heard of it. it's all gone crazy... off for a lie down. Funny post. Nice :)

Firstly they can’t control click fraud on adsense without a “Report Abuse” link, now they can’t control links without a “Report Abuse” link.
Great! They are doing really well.
Google Earth has bombed and they introduce stupid things that only get abused by cunning webmasters (eg:Google base) when 99% of internet users have never heard of it.

it’s all gone crazy… off for a lie down.

]]> By: ASHnatko http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1498 ASHnatko Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:26:49 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1498 But how does Google differentiate between "spam" paid links and, say a link given to members of a professional or community organization? I just joined the Cortland County Cultural Council and one of (many) benefits is a member page with a link to my web site. So how can this be separated from another type of "paid" link? But how does Google differentiate between “spam” paid links and, say a link given to members of a professional or community organization? I just joined the Cortland County Cultural Council and one of (many) benefits is a member page with a link to my web site. So how can this be separated from another type of “paid” link?

]]> By: johny http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1496 johny Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:54:35 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1496 couldn't help my self, had to submit too :D couldn’t help my self, had to submit too :D

]]> By: Halfdeck http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1495 Halfdeck Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:18:09 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1495 Google's stance on Yahoo! Directory is shaky, even in the eyes of a Cutlet. So why does Google bend over backwards to defend a defenseless position? IMO Google's algorithm needs high quality directory sites as seeds for their topical algorithms like Hilltop. Without being able to rely on the links listed on those directories, Google can't calculate topic-dependent authority scores. In that case, Google would have to sort results based on PageRank, which would decrease the quality of search results. Google’s stance on Yahoo! Directory is shaky, even in the eyes of a Cutlet. So why does Google bend over backwards to defend a defenseless position?

IMO Google’s algorithm needs high quality directory sites as seeds for their topical algorithms like Hilltop. Without being able to rely on the links listed on those directories, Google can’t calculate topic-dependent authority scores. In that case, Google would have to sort results based on PageRank, which would decrease the quality of search results.

]]> By: JLH http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1491 JLH Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:54:42 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1491 JohnMu, some interesting sites you're linking to today. I really like the "targeted" adsense. Sebastian, a new wave of "i've done nothing wrong" but been banned will hit webmasterworld after that. They can talk about that for 6 months since no-one actually knows what sites they are talking about. Come on over to the Google Webmaster Help group and the same site will get dismissed as spam in about 3 minutes. Since they don't name updates anymore, maybe Brett could start naming the next WMW diagnosed penalty syndrom. I doubt that they will just discount a billion links in one day, as I'm sure the practice is well established and ongoing as you've pointed out. But it would be interesting to watch if all of a sudden a ton of purchased links went impotent. Anchor Text boost would immediately be gone so site would stop ranking for that, then if they did have some PageRank from that loosing it may cause more pages to go supplemental-only, then as the final symptom 4 months later their visible PageRank would go down. WMW would have several thousand pages of speculation on duplicate content, length of titles, keyword density, the q-factor etc. JohnMu, some interesting sites you’re linking to today. I really like the “targeted” adsense.

Sebastian, a new wave of “i’ve done nothing wrong” but been banned will hit webmasterworld after that. They can talk about that for 6 months since no-one actually knows what sites they are talking about. Come on over to the Google Webmaster Help group and the same site will get dismissed as spam in about 3 minutes. Since they don’t name updates anymore, maybe Brett could start naming the next WMW diagnosed penalty syndrom.

I doubt that they will just discount a billion links in one day, as I’m sure the practice is well established and ongoing as you’ve pointed out. But it would be interesting to watch if all of a sudden a ton of purchased links went impotent. Anchor Text boost would immediately be gone so site would stop ranking for that, then if they did have some PageRank from that loosing it may cause more pages to go supplemental-only, then as the final symptom 4 months later their visible PageRank would go down. WMW would have several thousand pages of speculation on duplicate content, length of titles, keyword density, the q-factor etc.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1487 Sebastian Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:45:04 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1487 Especially when you know that Google's scoring of paid links goes back to 2003 or even earlier. That's at least five years to fine tune this corner of link analysis, so we should expect kinda sledgehammer when the new stuff Matt has mentioned goes life. Warnings are out since 2005, so that's not even "unfair" ;) Matt Cutts [08.24.05 09:31 AM] http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/search_engine_s_2.html "Tim points out that these these links have been sold for over two years. That's true. I've known about these O'Reilly links since at least 9/3/2003, and parts of perl.com, xml.com, etc. have not been trusted in terms of linkage for months and months. Remember that just because a site shows up for a "link:" command on Google does not mean that it passes PageRank, reputation, or anchortext." Especially when you know that Google’s scoring of paid links goes back to 2003 or even earlier. That’s at least five years to fine tune this corner of link analysis, so we should expect kinda sledgehammer when the new stuff Matt has mentioned goes life. Warnings are out since 2005, so that’s not even “unfair” ;)

Matt Cutts [08.24.05 09:31 AM]
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/search_engine_s_2.html
“Tim points out that these these links have been sold for over two years. That’s true. I’ve known about these O’Reilly links since at least 9/3/2003, and parts of perl.com, xml.com, etc. have not been trusted in terms of linkage for months and months. Remember that just because a site shows up for a “link:” command on Google does not mean that it passes PageRank, reputation, or anchortext.”

]]> By: JohnMu http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1485 JohnMu Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:54:34 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1485 If we mark links with rel=dofollow would that tell the Googlebot that we tested the links and can confirm that they were placed in good faith, as a free man? I think we're reading too much into this, it's not like anything gigantic has changed. But it's fun to discuss :-) (especially when you aren't dependent on paid links) If we mark links with rel=dofollow would that tell the Googlebot that we tested the links and can confirm that they were placed in good faith, as a free man?

I think we’re reading too much into this, it’s not like anything gigantic has changed. But it’s fun to discuss :-) (especially when you aren’t dependent on paid links)

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1484 Sebastian Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:18:23 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1484 Old fart always cryptic. Never puts clear statements. Everything clear as mud. Read "... linkbait well knowing that it will raise a heated discussion which will spread the message: 'folks, be aware that we've improved our distinguishing of your link intent so please justify before the shit hits the fan'". If-then-else is evil. Ok, at least outdated. Without nesting that's handling two conditions, whilst many plain Ifs in a row plus a final return false is way more flexible, and better readable. Old fart always cryptic. Never puts clear statements. Everything clear as mud. Read “… linkbait well knowing that it will raise a heated discussion which will spread the message: ‘folks, be aware that we’ve improved our distinguishing of your link intent so please justify before the shit hits the fan’”.

If-then-else is evil. Ok, at least outdated. Without nesting that’s handling two conditions, whilst many plain Ifs in a row plus a final return false is way more flexible, and better readable.

]]> By: JLH http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1482 JLH Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:36:09 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1482 Not sure if it's link bait, but he sure has raised the level of discussion which can only be a good thing. I, you, and others have pointed out the obsurdity in a global all paid links is bad philosophy the best way I know how, by example. It's debates like this that help one realize how difficult it is to manage a search engine. You end up with so many If...then..else statements that nothing fits anymore. Not sure if it’s link bait, but he sure has raised the level of discussion which can only be a good thing. I, you, and others have pointed out the obsurdity in a global all paid links is bad philosophy the best way I know how, by example.

It’s debates like this that help one realize how difficult it is to manage a search engine. You end up with so many If…then..else statements that nothing fits anymore.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1478 Sebastian Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:52:41 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1478 Since you've reported me as a pays-for-links-spammer will you now nofollow my URL drops in comments? Ok, the real question is "how the heck shall a Google user, I mean a searcher, distinguish artificial paid links (spammy) from natural paid links (fine)?". Are there "fine" paid links besides Yahoo!'s directory? SEOs reading Matt's blog know the difference and some of them will add paidlinks-spam-reports to their toolset. Is that really what Google wants? Is getting massively spammed with abusive spam reports worth the efforts to find a few more patterns and footsteps? And what about the side effects smelling a bit like FUD? Or is the call for paid-links-spam-reports just link bait? Since you’ve reported me as a pays-for-links-spammer will you now nofollow my URL drops in comments?

Ok, the real question is “how the heck shall a Google user, I mean a searcher, distinguish artificial paid links (spammy) from natural paid links (fine)?”. Are there “fine” paid links besides Yahoo!’s directory? SEOs reading Matt’s blog know the difference and some of them will add paidlinks-spam-reports to their toolset. Is that really what Google wants? Is getting massively spammed with abusive spam reports worth the efforts to find a few more patterns and footsteps? And what about the side effects smelling a bit like FUD? Or is the call for paid-links-spam-reports just link bait?

]]> By: Harvey http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1473 Harvey Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:40:22 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1473 I find most paid directories send me exactly one visitor - presumably the person who reviews my site before listing it. Anyone who says they buy directory links for traffic reasons are kidding themselves. Directory links are for juice, and any traffic you get is a bonus. I'd like to hear Google's official stance on paid directories - as clear cut an example of "link selling for PR" as you could find anywhere. Nice post. How about some unpaid link juice, huh, huh. I find most paid directories send me exactly one visitor - presumably the person who reviews my site before listing it.

Anyone who says they buy directory links for traffic reasons are kidding themselves. Directory links are for juice, and any traffic you get is a bonus.

I’d like to hear Google’s official stance on paid directories - as clear cut an example of “link selling for PR” as you could find anywhere.

Nice post. How about some unpaid link juice, huh, huh.

]]> By: JLH http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1475 JLH Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:48:44 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1475 Harvey, take a look at my NOFOLLOW policy linked to at the top of the blog. All commenters that contribute to the discussion and sites check out to not being spam, have their site link get followed automatically after they time out. Thanks for the comment, I think the real point I was trying to drive home is the duality of these kinds of stances with Google. It's not as cut and dry as Matt would like us to believe. I could have as easily used a church or a disaster relief site as an example, but there are instances where money transfers hands and a link is produced that are not as evil as buying a link. The Yahoo! directory of course had the added benefit of being endorsed by Google :) Harvey, take a look at my NOFOLLOW policy linked to at the top of the blog. All commenters that contribute to the discussion and sites check out to not being spam, have their site link get followed automatically after they time out.

Thanks for the comment, I think the real point I was trying to drive home is the duality of these kinds of stances with Google. It’s not as cut and dry as Matt would like us to believe. I could have as easily used a church or a disaster relief site as an example, but there are instances where money transfers hands and a link is produced that are not as evil as buying a link.

The Yahoo! directory of course had the added benefit of being endorsed by Google :)

]]> By: haiender http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1474 haiender Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:44:04 +0000 http://www.jlh-design.com/2007/04/i-submitted-my-spam-report/#comment-1474 good shot - nice and clean... good shot - nice and clean…

]]>