Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

<< < (8/14) > >>

Renegade:
Welcome to The Daily Reviewer

The Daily Reviewer selects only the world's top blogs (and RSS feeds). We sift through thousands of blogs daily to present you the world's best writers. The blogs that we include are authoritative on their respective niche topics and are widely read. To be included in The Daily Reviewer is a mark of excellence.
--- End quote ---

GACK~! I believe the normal English translation is: "We've stolen your content, so please be proud that we're stealing from you. You must be awesome!"

SEO is in so many ways a dirty game. Google should really just wipe out the dirty players from their index entirely.

It's like a restaurant. First page of the menu is lovely, but page 6 has "creme de la shit" and "mucus sandwich with feline feces". It doesn't bode well for the restaurant.

So why include it at all?

Google hires more PhDs than anyone. They've got so many smart people that I don't believe that they can't solve the problem.

Again, Google ads are the stick problem there. Quack quack.

JavaJones:
Intelligence does not always win out over brute force. The spammers have brute force on their side. If intelligence was all it takes, then a competitor search engine would have demonstrably trumped Google's results right now. At least they're working on the problem.

Quite frankly it seems ridiculous to assume that whatever percentage of their ad income they get from spam sites with adwords justifies to them what is claimed to be a dramatic reduction in search quality, given the competitiveness of this market and how search remains the core vehicle for their business and income. In other words if their search engine stops being the most relevant and giving the best results, they'll lose far more money from lost customers than the money they gain from spammy sites with adwords. I think the simple reality is it's hard to tell sophisticated spam, much less stolen/duplicated content, from good and source content. Even humans have trouble telling the difference often times.

- Oshyan

Bamse:
Yep.

But yesterday I noticed they deleted a blogger site based on very obviously false accusations (on their forum) which was "escalated to Goolge" by a "Top contributor". Once he kicked in site vanished in hours. Young lightly dressed girls were mentioned, actually 6-16 year olds. False but attracts attention.

From a strange mix of internet chitchat I knew that site quite well and it was clean "enough" and had the initial "You are about to enter..." warning. There were a certain amount of nudity. Site was mainly about "calling out" "pedos" hunting young/underage girls on webcam sites - here totally focused on Justin.tv. In every article hatred towards the leadership and handling of the site was very clear. Strange hobby perhaps, but somewhat worthy of support. I at least approved. Loads of screen shots (with clear focus on tracked user names, not nudity), involving Admins of the site asking girls to Skype conversations even. Hardly surprising to anyone knowing Justin.tv. Whatever, point is Goolge has the balls to wipe out content very fast, also without knowing what they are deleting. Matter of policy and in Google Search world perhaps the accept that their high tech setup fails in certain areas.

JavaJones:
Unfortunately child porn is sort of the "master password" to getting anything destroyed/taken down quickly and without much thought or question.

- Oshyan

Renegade:
I think the simple reality is it's hard to tell sophisticated spam, much less stolen/duplicated content, from good and source content. Even humans have trouble telling the difference often times.
-JavaJones (January 29, 2011, 07:37 PM)
--- End quote ---

I hope you're right. I really don't know. But the fact remains that there's still a lot of spam in their results for whatever reason.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page