It seems to me that much of this can be removed from the realm of the mystical--which is to say opinion--in a simple way. If definite, particular examples of pages at least, say, 6 months old with obvious and nontrivial (in quantity) examples of what pretty much anyone would call elementary black-hat techniques, then that would seem proof positive that Google is *not* filtering for the particular black-hat act in question. The impression I get from most of the complaints (which I am too laz--er busy--to actually check out) is that the claimed spamming is of a pretty basic sort, and pretty obvious to anyone who looks. IF that can be supported with examples of sufficient age that any algo should by now have caught them, then I'd say it _proves_ the nonexistence of any such algo. If someone, for example, comes up with a block of keyword-rich text that is white-on-white (in a page that is not still pretty new), then I'd say it's rather clear that Google is not catching such text spamming. If, as I suspect, at least some of the claimants can adduce such proofs, what then of all the assurances that "Google'll get 'em in the end"? It does not seem as if we are speaking here of any subtle new technologies. Just a thought . . . .
AH ! At last I see someone addressing the creative approach for (IMHO) the RIGHT reason. It's very simple. Regardless of how various SEO practices are percieved, Google is just another tool. Use it as you choose to. G gives you nothing in return for the Gigs of data it pulls down every month except a guarantee that no promises are made. Exploit your knowledge of SEO as any business person would exploit any other business tool. If your audience (regardless of the technology behind their arrival) gets what they're looking for, and it works for you, then your success speaks for itself. Yes, Googles inability to algorythmically deal with varieties of "SPAM" does place some at a disadvantage - learn from it. Know where various practices stand in relation to Google's filters (there is no such thing as TOS where SERPS are concerned, so realize that Black/White is a myth) and leverage it according to risk. Make your own decisions about risk vs revenue, be patient enough not to jump to conclusions, and you're on your way to competing in an environment where the blatantly obvious actually can spell success. Remeber too that what doesn't work for G may work for Y. As for reporting sites to G, the turnaround I've seen has been from 2 to 3 weeks (yes). The fact that they were large (10,000p+), TOTALLY unrelated to their respective search terms, and ranked well in the SERPS no doubt had impact. I also always make a point of asking if this is now accepted practice for sites that want to rank well on G, given it's obviously ranking them well. The one thing I DONT bother doing is reporting sites that may use "SPAM" but DO provide relevant content for their audience. Especially where the author has clearly invested time and effort, and the site is growing through interaction - ie forums/services etc. Remember - if they're ranking well, they're a potential asset too. In so far as spam practices are concerned - they'll never cease because the practice is relative - (ie CSS hidden text for example is commonly used in rollovers to hide/show content etc, as well as being used to hide content for the benfit of humans vs bots). Phew ! what a post. It's been a while.. just had to get it out of my system Hmmm... what's the opposite of grey ?
Most of the websites that are spamming are incredibly easy to spot. In fact spotting a spammer is a no-brainer. The most common and easiest form of spamming is keyword stuffing in the titles and the descriptions. Most of my competitors flood their title and descriptions with keywords and some of them will even add "hidden text" also. I have complained about this to G but I think it is not so obvious to them and moreover they hardly take any qualitative action on the complaints. I can understand their inability to take actions on each and every complaint. But if they have developed some sort of algo to penalize sites which spam then somebody should tell them that it is not working "so" well. I mean it should be able of catch the obvious spam practices like keyword stuffing.
Shawn, a lot of folks go further into the results than someone as busy as yourself, I know that I will go very far into most searches, sometimes 10-40 pages deep. If the results have been diluted down, folks must go many pages into a search to find what they want, this also works in Google's favor just like a newspaper sends you from section A to section B sometimes to read a story. Read the NY Times section A and they make you go to section C to get the rest of the story (eyeball stretching to look at ads) Google does the same thing.
Absolutely never seen any proof or substantiation of that. It doesn't even make sense. There is no need for them to do that. They certainly are not doing it in collusion with AdSense publishers or else Shawn or I would surely know about it. We are both AdSense publishers. Why would they do it and not tell the AdSense advertiser? The only possible reason for doing it is as an incentive to AdSense publisher. How is the incentive going to work if you don't tell the beneficiary? If they are doing it on AdWord ads they are cutting their own throat. If someone is paying for the ad, and you put their page in the top ten, then people will probably click on the generic search resul, and then Google doesn't make any money. For a conspiracy theory to have any appeal there must be a clear cut advantage to the perpetrators. You have failed to illustrate what this advantage is to Google.
That, I fear, remains in the realm of the mystical, which is to say opinion. Some tricks, from the obvious white-on-white to the more devious ones are overt, in the sense that there is a binary, "bright-line" quality about them: doing it at all is wrong, period the end. "Stuffing" is more subjective--I don't believe there is any bright line between "optimization" and "stuffing". Granted, at some point, pretty much everyone who looks at this or that gross example will agree, but it remains largely like Justice Wossname's "definition" of pornography: "I know it when I see it." When I wrote that IF that can be supported with examples of sufficient age that any algo should by now have caught them, then I'd say it _proves_ the nonexistence of any such algo, I meant something on which there could never be a difference of opinion on whether it is a black-hat technique.
This traffic redirection to Adsense publishers websites is still a secret that webmasters don't know about Bob, please do not discuss it any longer. We would not want Google's biggest trade secret to get out. When folks find out about this they would never believe it anyway, at least that is what Larry and Sergey think.
If they are doing it on AdWord ads they are cutting their own throat. If someone is paying for the ad, and you put their page in the top ten, then people will probably click on the generic search result, and then Google doesn't make any money. The above is cut and pasted from Compar's post. Bob they make money on ADWORDS by diluting the search index with a greater cross section of websites that use the same keywords, that does not mean that the SERP's are relevant. That is the whole point, keep the organic results lukewarm to force webmasters to BUY ADWORDS to stay in the game. ADSENSE works just the the other way, list ADSENSE publishers higher in the SERP's so more Google ads are seen by those who click on the organic result that takes the surfer to more Google ads on the ADSENSE publishers site. Google Makes More Money with both of these ALGO's, how do you think they generated 60% margin on their sales. 95% of their net earnings are from contextual advertising, do you think they want to sell contextual advertising and get folks to click on ADSENSE ads?
It seems from this discussion that most everyone seems to feel that Google should be looking at every line of the serps it puts into a ranking list every time it ranks pages for a search and automatically find any spam in them. That would not be a very logical way for a search engine to operate, and IMO does not seem to be the way Google operates. Google seems to handle spam that is getting out of hand by setting up a special program to search thier index to find and penalize a particular kind of spam (say hidden text) and every so often runs a blitz to penalize that sort of spam. If a particular feature of the ranking algorithm is being abused to the point that it is above their tolerance level then they can adjust the emphasis for that factor in the serps and/or run a blitz on a particular spam item and clean up the serps that way. There is really no need IMO to install this filter and that filter into a ranking algorithm to detect spam, and IMO doing so would slow the search engine down to the point that it would suffer a loss of users. I do see some questionable practices in Google serps, but I have yet to fail to find the information I am looking for in Google on the first page and usually in the top of the first page and that after all is what search engines are about, finding information for users not providing top rankings for Joe or Harry.
Interesting conspiracy theory Anthony (though I have heard this on a few dozen times before), but a couple of thing confuse me - Most sites I work with do well in the organic results, and never need to use Adwords. I do not have Adsense on my site yet those ranking below me do have. How does this square with your conspiracy theory?
Mel Google could put a gun to your head and you would still say that they are fair, so it is not a theory that is a consideration here, but your bias position on every forum toward Google. You could never learn anything new about Google Mel since all of your positions are cast in concrete. Too bad for you that the industry moves at the speed of light, but you seem to have your opinions cast in concrete. You have the same line on every forum, that line is that Google does no wrong. Your examples are fine, but I am telling you what I see from what Google does not what their PR agents say. You can believe or not believe anything you want, but you should also be objective or you will fall behind. Think about this Mel, Google used to provide Yahoo with results, do you think it is possible that Google put redirection results in the index (Yahoo's Results) that would redirect traffic back to Google's ADSENSE Publishers? Please give the forum an answer on the above question only in your next post.
First of all Anthony if we are going to enter into a dialog, it is not going to be one way, where you do not answer my posts and think you can dictate what I can respond to and what I cannot. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it sonny. As for the high school insults I find them kind of amusing, so please keep them coming, we are getting a good laugh out of them here Now if you are trying to say that this has in fact happened, then just show us the URL or whatever evidence you have. That will settle it quick enough... No need to pose hypothetical questions, since the answer to any hypothetical is Maybe, depending, if, perhaps, etc etc.
It did happen Mel, Yahoo banned many Google ADSENSE publishers sites from their index for that reason. So Google placing spam in the index (not webmasters Mel, Google), let me not say spam, let me call them what they are "redirection to adsense search results". Like I said Mel, you can believe what you want to believe, just don't ever think you know it all, because no one does. I do not insult you, you have a lot to offer, but are you willing to look at new information and knowledge, or is your mind shut off to new data?
I evaluate new ideas daily, but the idea that Google is influencing organic search to push people towards Adwords or adsense is an old one, and previous investigations showed me nothing in that direction. I do firmly believe that if this were proven to be true it would do more damage to Google and their upcoming IPO than any amount of money they have made from either the adwords or adsense programs, and I suspect that this thought may have crossed the mind of one or more of the 150 PHDs that Google have in their employ. For what its worth Anthony I am in agreement with you regarding Googles public statements, believing them to be some of the best spin in the industry. The only thing I know for sure is what gets top rankings, and that changes all the time. So far I have been able to more or less suss out what it takes to do that for the past six years, but who knows I may fall by the wayside tomorrow, heck already today one of my terms fell from #3 to #5 and now I have to figure out why that is.