Author Topic: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here... (Read 40,330 times)

mahesh2k · « **Reply #25 on:** January 23, 2011, 10:38 AM »

Quote

are you stating the obvious by saying it is waste of time?

Yes. From where we're looking at things and the way we get reactions in return from the system. Is it known fact ? How can i say it for sure ? Because there are likely to be some cases where it works. For example, people like micheal gray, seth godin if posted about X/Y/Z site being autoblog crap or why it's on page 1 for such crap, then things can be fixed in minutes. So can't say it's known fact or if google takes action or not, confidently.

Matt cutts and team is quite mysterious at combating spam. Don't be surprised if many good sites like our member blogs, doco forum gets slapped in next google update, google is likely to fail 2-3 algorithm updates before getting any good result. And chances are there that some good sites will suffer in these future updates.

P:S- You just linked to that spam blog in your reply. Make it text instead of hyperlink so that they don't get linkjuice from doco for being scrappy

Bamse · « **Reply #26 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:10 AM »

Ooops, I have fixed links.

With all those pages to deal with they must use automated algorithms and so mistakes happen. What they do to manually fix errors is more interesting. We need a former employee to get chatty about how Google work internally with this. Not much valid info is available I think. Not easy to complain when no one has any fact based info. I am optimist and believe they just need to change priorities, get finger out.

Bamse · « **Reply #27 on:** January 28, 2011, 09:25 PM »

I have complained

I noticed site is no longer no. 27 here but 36 and went hmm. Coincidence with their latest anti-scraping/spam move of today?

[attach]

Renegade · « **Reply #28 on:** January 29, 2011, 01:38 AM »

That's been one very specific thing that's been pissing me off -- copied content from StackOverflow. Good to know that those issues will be getting addressed. It's about time.

Renegade · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2011, 12:14 AM »

So much for that... F**king lies... They've not done jack.

Stolen without attribution:
Original: http://www.wordbanter.com/showthread.php?t=35069
Stolen: http://thedailyreviewer.com/windowsapps/view/c-automation-coloring-text-specific-rgb-or-html-color-105185728

Stolen WITH attribution:
Stolen StackOverflow content: http://www.questionhub.com/StackOverflow/2183437

If they're not lying, then they're just doing a piss poor job of filtering stolen content.

The fact that the thieves are serving up Google ads STILL does not look good.

It just HAS to make you wonder. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.

Renegade · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2011, 12:39 AM »

And more:

Original (I believe):
http://www.ureader.com/msg/10111337.aspx

Stolen results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=C%23+rgb+to+WdColorIndex

[attachthumb=#]

Stolen content:
http://thedailyreviewer.com/windowsapps/view/finding-higlights-a-specific-color-11880449

The original isn't in the search results.

Sigh... There's just no end to it. This happens to me ALL the time.

Renegade · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2011, 12:47 AM »

Original:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/33784682/refactoring-from-vba-to-c.aspx

Stolen:
http://thedailyreviewer.com/windowsapps/view/refactoring-from-vba-to-c-106121758

Search (got original):
http://www.google.com/search?q=C%23+rgb+to+WdColorIndex

Search (got stolen):
http://www.google.com/search?q=C%23+WdColorIndex+vs+wdcolor

Stolen search screenshot:
[attachthumb=#]

Renegade · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2011, 12:52 AM »

And another...
http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/members-word-vba-programming/44880-refactoring-visual-basic-applications-c.html

I saw that stolen somewhere else, just forget where now... It's just nutty how much stolen content is out there.

Renegade · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2011, 12:55 AM »

Quote from: Renegade on January 30, 2011, 12:52 AM

And another...
http://www.thecodecage.com/forumz/members-word-vba-programming/44880-refactoring-visual-basic-applications-c.html

I saw that stolen somewhere else, just forget where now... It's just nutty how much stolen content is out there.

Ooops -- looks like Egghead cafe is the thief, or these guys are:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/33784682/refactoring-from-vba-to-c.aspx

Not sure who anymore!?!?!?!

Bamse · « **Reply #34 on:** January 30, 2011, 01:14 AM »

Bots and automated ranking must have difficulties in judging content with quotes/attributions and those without - can we not assume that is a parameter in 2011? The Daily Reviewer does mention they are using other sites content though, more than can be said about many other sites. Why they rank so high is another question. If they can scrape content they can also make it clear where it come from - is separated on purpose which is a major violation of common behavior when quoting/making content based on 3rd party material. Not up for debate in any way. Such a broad announcement they have on top of page is no good for individual articles which users run into via search results. Google bot should figure that out.

If Google started to punish not mentioning where content come from seo/marking people behind crappy sites will start to experiment with how to fool bot into believing they have lived up to request while necessary info is practically invisible to user. Much like TOS including use of Google Analytics etc. They will probably succeed. So manual cleaning is necessary. Only punishment that works without getting into excluding/censoring debate is to put violating sites back at the bus - lowering parameter no. 248 a notch as part of a mile long algorithm thought out by the brightest brains is not enough, back at the bus must be literally way way back. They are still present at Google but not easy to find

If they make examples of this message will be heard, minor change in ranking is not really solution to real problems. Will just make idiotic site admins work tirelessly to accommodate "new rules" and continue coming up with new ones of their own.

Renegade · « **Reply #35 on:** January 30, 2011, 01:28 AM »

Quote

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.

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 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2011, 01:37 AM »

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 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2011, 01:51 AM »

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 · « **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2011, 03:19 AM »

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

- Oshyan

Renegade · « **Reply #39 on:** January 30, 2011, 04:11 AM »

Quote from: JavaJones on January 30, 2011, 01:37 AM

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.

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.

JavaJones · « **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2011, 04:18 AM »

In *their* results or in *all search engine results*? Come on, seriously, stop dodging this issue. If it's a Google problem then I want to know about it so I can start using some other system! But so far everything I've tried hasn't been any better than Google in the majority of cases, and sometimes worse.

DuckDuckGo now has a billboard up in San Francisco. Are they advertising better search results or less spam? No. Their sole marketing point is that they don't track you and Google does. Well, I don't really care about the tracking, and the results in Google are as good or better than the competition.

I'll be thrilled when the next search revolution comes on and does to the search space what Google did back when it debuted. Whether it comes from Google or someone else I don't care.

- Oshyan

Renegade · « **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2011, 04:35 AM »

Quote from: JavaJones on January 30, 2011, 04:18 AM

In *their* results or in *all search engine results*? Come on, seriously, stop dodging this issue. If it's a Google problem then I want to know about it so I can start using some other system! But so far everything I've tried hasn't been any better than Google in the majority of cases, and sometimes worse.

DuckDuckGo now has a billboard up in San Francisco. Are they advertising better search results or less spam? No. Their sole marketing point is that they don't track you and Google does. Well, I don't really care about the tracking, and the results in Google are as good or better than the competition.

I'll be thrilled when the next search revolution comes on and does to the search space what Google did back when it debuted. Whether it comes from Google or someone else I don't care.

- Oshyan

I really only use Google as they are more consistent. As for other engines, not sure. I'm usually disappointed whenever I try anything else. I'm not trying to dodge anything. Just wasn't considering anything else other than Google.

JavaJones · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2011, 06:42 AM »

Testing with Jeopardy questions has Google (just) winning over Bing and others: http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2011/01/27/google-would-just-beat-bing-at-jeopardy/

Google's results for at least some questions (or, as Jeopardy would put it, "answers", hehe) remain the most relevant...

This makes me wonder if in fact the techie audience here tends to have search terms that are particularly susceptible to SEO gaming (or particularly targeted). That could explain the higher perception of results in Google being less relevant by users here.

- Oshyan

Renegade · « **Reply #43 on:** January 31, 2011, 07:26 AM »

Quote from: JavaJones on January 31, 2011, 06:42 AM

This makes me wonder if in fact the techie audience here tends to have search terms that are particularly susceptible to SEO gaming (or particularly targeted). That could explain the higher perception of results in Google being less relevant by users here.

I've thought about that, and it would make sense. You have some techie spammer that turns to familiar sites - tech sites -- and writes his own spammy sites.

However, online shopping... Nightmare. You never get the manufacturer site. Whenever I try to search for anything I end up with a lot of crap. I mean when I want to buy something and need to do a bit of research -- I'm swamped with junk.

Admittedly, I'm usually searching for car or camera stuff...

mahesh2k · « **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2011, 08:54 AM »

Quote

Bots and automated ranking must have difficulties in judging content with quotes/attributions and those without - can we not assume that is a parameter in 2011?

Any odd developer can fix this - there are 5 copies of the content and google knows which is the original so why not ingore the remaining 4 ? i just see no reason for google to improve from this mistake. Google has yet to remove duplicate content from the search entries. I don't know what's stopping them from doing that, why they need duplicate copies ? People overestimate google's power in case of their algorithm. It's basically a sh88t algorithm from wanna-be phd holders at google. Any tom dick and harry can copy content from other sites and rank number 1.And these phd brains in google are taking time to improve algorithm just to discard duplicate content sites and entries ? check sites like metroadvice .com -pure BS with content from yahoo answers and other sites.

Google algorithm has many flaws as of now-
1. can't differentiate between duplicate and original copies
2. have no way of detecting new sites and their content
3. have no respect for social signals and places (where people flock to discuss or read the info)
4. slaps are unjustified on many pages and sites
5. indexing and de-indexing is very poor
6. No respect to brand (for example, take case of product owner sites, you see less results to him and more to reviews of his products that's sad).

Renegade · « **Reply #45 on:** January 31, 2011, 09:02 AM »

@mahesh2k -

:D:D

For #6 - It's simply make MUCH more sense to put the manufacturer/original author at the top then have reviews and whatnot below. It's just common sense.

Checking a query...

With "Sony dvd player" I actually got relevant results for Sony sites. For "dvd player", I got crap. Not a single maker/manufacturer/author. Amazon and shopping sites.

Not too bad. They got one relevant set of results.

JavaJones · « **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2011, 09:06 AM »

I hate to sound like a broken record, but if it's so easy to improve on Google and its algorithms are so deficient, where are the sites that have clearly superior results? I want a better search engine!

- Oshyan

Bamse · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2011, 08:06 AM »

Should be easy to react to complaints though. mahesh2k the doubtful could be right about Google ignoring reports. There have been no reaction worth mentioning to that bird cage site. Seems like Google expect admins to read and follow advices on their Webmaster pages, if good behavior is ignored and later pointed out by users not much seem to happen.

About their censorship on Blogger they continue to act very fast and firm. Now another of those anti-JTV sites have vanished. Thread closed - ends off with a confused post about all nudity, all LINKS to "nudity, pornography" being in violation with TOS (and of course "God bless" as sign off). Google does not say that at all. Any Blogger admin have the option of marking site as containing sexual content in settings. Only when main purpose of site is porn they might remove it. They specifically say Adult Content is allowed but might require a warning http://www.google.com/support/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=76314

First site had been around since 2007/2008 with same old campaign and content so "6-16 year olds" and "porn" in same sentence really does equals instant booom. Those dealing with search index could get inspiration from these scared Blogger priests. I wonder how much of index will be left once they get going

Renegade · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2011, 08:15 AM »

Sigh... Looks like another spammer has crept into the Google index way up at #1: www.bigresource.com -- simply garbage. Complete garbage.

Bamse · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2011, 09:20 AM »

Autoblogging made easy http://premium.wpmudev.org/project/autoblog I like how they add a warning about misuse at end of video

They are not in to that but develop based on legitimate requests from Premium members.

Quote

So, this plugin (plus our blog and user creation ones) essentially allows you to create a WordPress Multisite network, with thousands of blogs that are automatically published to by RSS feeds, within a few hours.... with no code knowledge required!

Free autoblog plugin at Wordpress.org http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wpematico/

Add WP Auto Affiliate Links http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wp-auto-affiliate-links/ and we have a nice setup for monetizing the web with little to no effort.