Here's one script for sale. (not my site) Only 297$ and you too can have a billion subdomains of spam. Google takes their Adwords money too, I notice.
The value is not in the traffic on all those pages. It's all the links pointing to his money domains.
this is the easy part. you can have wildcard-subdomains and redirect any requests to the same script (so no need to create any real subdomains), like here: browser calls http://sexy.seo.org -> redirect to www.seo.org/content.php?what=sexy (done by the webserver, so you dont see it) -> use the parameter $what to create content upon request, for example you can pull some articles out of an article database with a high keyword density on "sexy". dont forget to add more links to your own spampages and put 3 large adsense-bocks on it. its maybe a bit tricky if you setup something like this the first time, but quite easy if you already have some experience with webservers.
See earlier post with research by the spam queen (or whatever she calls herself). She seems to have found out about as much about "who did it" as anyone else.
Matt Cutts posted on the blog last night with the same thing as Adam -- "bad data push" Sorry, but you don't get pages and pages of top 10 results from a bad data push. You don't get an Alexa of under 2,000 from a bad data push. While the indexed pages might not be billions if there is a miscount, this guy certainly has gamed Google in record time. My favorite example was pizza sauce where he owned pages and pages of the result set. It looks like it is being cleaned up as we type. >>"war on terror pro cons" ? >>and you think such keywords give him good traffic? You've outed yourself as someone who doesn't get much traffic. Webmasters with busy sites due to natural search rankings all know that it is the long tail-- multiple word keyphrases-- that bring in the most traffic. I'd rather rank for a thousand small keyphrases than 1 huge keyword. That is why forum archives do so well-- they cover thousands of keyphrases. Yes, I definitely believe he has a huge legitimate pile of traffic from those 2, 3, and 4 word phrases. Like someone else said, any Alexa below 2,000 (especially non webmaster related) is getting hundreds of thousands of uniques per day.
They have. They just haven't been so bold as to do it on this scale. Maybe bold is not the right word. If you think about cost/income he's broke the world record in Web world IF he can get and cash the check(s). I am pretty sure that people have the proccess down to even automating EVERYTHING like you say. But they have bottle-necks. Whatever the hell this guy managed (I still don't see where the complexity is, and wonder about how important external linking was to this). I had someone maliciously use click fraud to get my account closed and G acted like the Chinese legal system. How can this guy do something on this scale and not get someone made enough at him to do that to him? I don't know how many Pub IDs he's using though.
Guardian.co.uk just picked up the story: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technol...8/how_to_get_billions_of_pages_in_google.html
Exactly, now they are going to minimize the whole problem ... go ahead Google but we know better then that.
I don't recall here name, but there is a woman who is the best known of all all the "get the spammers" crowd who actively hunts them down. Someone post in about the first 250 on the thread a link to her WIKI. It's the best research I've seen about how this is. "spam queen huntress" something like that. Very well known name, I just don't normally follow her comings and goings.
I think there must be some control authority or rules and regulations over Google. We cannot afford such irresponsible behavior of search engine giant.
I love it... SuperAff.com saved the SERPs to a PDF. Now we can laugh about "pizza sauce recipe" for a long time. http://superaff.com/downloads/googlepizzasaucerecipespam.pdf http://superaff.com/downloads/googlepizzadoughrecipespam.pdf Yup... bad data push. Don't worry, it is just a miscount, right? That accounts for his pages and pages of rankings for one keyphrase.
That comment is (I think) not from the real Matt Cutts. Would the real Matt Cutts put a dead link in the comment URI field: http://www.google.com/blog/ ?