Google Answers Spammers

[Elite Skills]

A recent article has been appearing that says people who spam their site on google answers will receive high pagerank.

Today a bunch of webmasters decided to say minimally related things and post their website in every page they could.

NO!

Adding your link will not get you any higher pagerank than posting in any other forum.

Spamming google can get your page blacklisted. Google hates unrelated links on content rich pages and promotional frenzy in what is ment to be a scholarly resource.


Nothings more disgusting than seeing a poor guy suffering from anxiety getting posts telling him he needs this or that medication, antioxident, or book.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=480848



Absolutely disgusting.
- Jimmy

[mj2043]

Interesting thread....I always wonder why people want help for their medical problme from open forum, that make them worse.

[MathsIsFun]

They just need a good moderator, right?

If someone spams this forum, sooner or later it'll get deleted. I have seen "buy from me!" ads posted here, and it is always amusing to see how long they last (not very long!)

And, if they tracked ip's or domains that get moderated out, they could blacklist them after too many spams.

[Elite Skills]

Man did I get scared... my pages had no pagerank for a second there.

[ticketauction]

I read that article and tried it out. Unlike others, I did NOT abuse it. I posted 4 comments, all at least a pargraph long in questions regarding my industry. I was unbiased and included comepitors urls in my answers--- is this ok? and will google still punish me?

[Elite Skills]

No, if you're answering questions it's fine.

It's not fine if you pop in your url in every post you make.

It's not fine if people ask a question for two dollars and answer it themselves on another account advertising their webpage.

[cbp]

I just read the newsletter article saying to do this --- talk about encouraging people to ruin Google Answers.

CBP

[flood6]

I read that article this morning and could not remember any SERPs I monitor or any recent searches where I saw G Answers often in the top 10.

I did some looking and could not really find this gold-mine that the author was talking about. I guess the IBLs would help to some extent, but like forum signatures, blog spam, and wiki spam the benefit would be limited at best. And like those methods, it would be just as annoying to the genuine users and researchers.

I imagine getting involved could be beneficial for the right person in the right market, but it would take work (like most worthwhile things seem to); effort better spent improving your own content and rankings instead of Google's.

[Elite Skills]

Moderators have been cleaning up for the past several hours.

It was a LOT of spam...



Google answers prompts get a pagerank of 0 at first and most stay there. This is not much different at all from many high grade forums. Since links cannot be put in an html tag, it's just your plain domain name. This will not improve rankings for any particular keyword, but add like another blog site would, as mentioned.


If google starts loosing revenue from it's service, there'll be far more hell to pay for those who spam.

[DrTandem1]

I read that article, also. I can't remember from where it came, but it was sp@m. I read it and deleted it without much thought. Now that I think more about it, it makes me wonder why someone couldn't "answer" questions at Google and sp@m with their competitors URL. They probably can.

Therefore, I suspect a couple of things. It is doubtful that Google crawls its own site(s). It is also doubtful that Google will blacklist any sp@m URLs, unless it can verify that their source was from the owner of said URL. Lastly, I suspect that they just clean house and remove URLs as unauthorized ads, not as a means of protecting link popularity's integrity, if there is such a thing.

[Elite Skills]

Yes, that is the spammers mentality.

Most webmasters are arrogant enough to sign up with their own email address.

If google is losing revenues as people are bastardizing their educational resource, I bet they'll go one step further to verify.

Google does crawl its own pages, and rather frequently. That is why the article said you'd higher your rank.

[cbp]

I can't remember from where it came, but it was sp@m.

SiteProNews ..... big dent in their credibility after carrying that rubbish.

CBP

[Elite Skills]

They have 0 as their pagerank now.

[collusion]

Funny thing is the article is still on their homepage. LOL.

[cbp]

Editorial Note: The article published in SiteProNews on March 9th entitled "A Back Road Loophole For Getting a Top Google Ranking" received a lot of negative feedback from readers who tried the ranking method suggested by the author. Given Google's response that even on topic posts could result in being banned, we strongly recommend you not use the method suggested to boost rankings. The advice provided by the author is obviously no longer a loophole.

What a load of rubbish...there was never a loophole.... I certainly won't be trustng their newsletter anymore.

I think Google should sue them for the damage they have done to Google Answers.

CBP

[DrTandem1]

When I read these schemes I think of get-rich-quick schemes and quickly discount them. Especially, when the author used the word "loophole."

The point is, Google Answers was not to be used as an SEO tool. So, anything that has the supposed ability to artificially raise your site in the SERPs is likely dishonest. When you read how he suggested manipulating Google itself for this purpose, it should have thrown up all sorts of red-flags in your mind.

Build a clean site for your visitors. As long as it doesn't have any obstructions to the search engines such as a noindex,nofollow statement or built entirely with images and no text, it should be ranked in the SERPs.

The simple truth is you don't need SEO, just a webmaster to design it properly in the first place.

[collusion]

Hey good DR I agree with you on the red flag for that whole situation but you shouldn't have compared it to a get rich quick scheme. I agree you should use due diligance but some of those "schemes" are actually valid. ( See: www.equitybegone.com/board/ )

I will also no longer be even slightly entertaining those newsletters anymore though. Although I didn't do what they said and they probably helped me against my competition ;) it was wrong and the author should have done his homework first.

There "were" obviously a respected source before this incident and also ranked pretty well. Why didn't they know that Google is most likely a subscriber? They have a team of people out there looking for people who know about "loopholes" so they can fix them. You can compare it to anti-piracy teams that software makers have scouring the world wide web for cracks and serial numbers so they can patch them.

[DrTandem1]

I was simply using an analogy. I did not mean to imply that all get-rich-quick schemes are illegal. However, I still say, if it is a scheme in the sense that it is evading the true intent or purpose of a system, such as Google Answers, then it is unethical.

[Maloney]

The article actually didn't state 'spam Google answers'. They gave a good example using LED boards and said:

All they’d have to do is post a comment to this query listing their company as broker of LED boards. You can even list URL’s in the comment.

Responding to someone's question about LED boards, and providing a LED board website as an answer - that isn't spamming in my mind.

To me the message was: watch google answers and if there's someone looking for help that your website can help with, post it because it helps in the SERPs. And out of 4.2 million results, the google search for LED boards *does* list the google answers thread in position #2.

If someone here makes a thread asking for a place to buy gold spangles, and I respond saying - hey I sell gold spangles at thisismygoldspanglessite.com, is that spam?

This newsletter pointed out an observation of google answers showing up high in the SERPs and how someone could use that to their advantage. It wasn't about spamming google answers IMO.

[collusion]

Good point Maloney. Maybe the spamsters in us all jumped out too fast huh?

[cbp]

This newsletter pointed out an observation of google answers showing up high in the SERPs and how someone could use that to their advantage. It

It was a flawed observation. The way SiteProNews presented it was irresponsible.

CBP

[collusion]

It was a gamble just like the stock market and SEO's lost.

[cbp]

Anyone seen the latest rubbish from SiteProNews. This weeks newsletter should be called "How to get yourself a permanent ban from ODP/DMOZ" ... anyone readng it, please don't follow the advice.

CBP

[flood6]

Which suggestion is so bad? I could see getting annoyed if I was in some huge cat and getting emails every 3 months from the owners of the spam I delete, but I'm sure that will always happen anyway.

At least he makes clear to only submit once.

[cbp]

Newsletter said:

1) Submit site
2) wait for 3 months
3) follow up email to category editor
4) wait for 3 months
5) escalation email to category editor above your category
6) wait for 3 months
7) ask for assistance in the Open Directory Public Forum
8) wait for 1 month
9) escalation email to DMOZ senior staff & post to various forums seeking help

It was (3), (5) and (9) - I react negatively to any email from submitters wanting special treatmet.

CBP

[flood6]

I don't mind getting feedback (which is usually a euphemism for complaints) for the most part. What makes me mad is when I get something from a webmaster with this "list my %$&@#^! site now" tone, or when the writer obviously didn't care enough to write a decent email explaining themselves or their concern. Something like "whenz my site gonna be up! www.example.cz".

Those emails spark fantasies of me going through the entire directory and not just removing all of their sites, but their families' and friends' sites, too. Sites that belong to anyone they've ever talked to... But of course I don't; by then I've already done what I'm going to do to their site. It's been moved, deleted, listed, etc.

Well written, patient emails will get responses from me. We're encouraged not to respond, but (again small cats) I don't mind corresponding with sane human beings with reasonable questions/concerns/complaints.

[flood6]

I haven't read the article yet, but I thought the Editorial Note was funny.

[cbp]

Must be feeling the heat :-)

CBP

[collusion]

So you are actually saying you do not index sites based on relevance. You would rather ignore relevant ones because they email you? Hmmm.. I really liked you at first. We should move this duscussion back to the thread "Dmoz isnt open after all".

[flood6]

Originally Posted by collusion

You would rather ignore relevant ones because they email you?

That's pretty much the complete opposite of what I said...

By the time I get an email I've already decided what is going to be done to their site. I can react pretty fast after it's submitted because I'm in small categories.

A polite or well thought out email will usually encourage me to respond to them and give them additional details, tips, etc.

A rude email gets ignored after I flip off my monitor.

[collusion]

I believe I was referring to cbp.

[collusion]

Originally Posted by cbp

Newsletter said:

It was (3), (5) and (9) - I react negatively to any email from submitters wanting special treatmet.

CBP

You react negatively to this? You need to have patience and index sites based on relevance not because you didnt like thier emails.

[flood6]

Ahhh... well, my comment needed clarifying anyway.

I should have known...no one likes me.

[collusion]

lol, Naw.. I havnt had time to judge you yet. I am in an argument with cbp in the other thread, "DMOZ isnt open after all".

[cbp]

So you are actually saying you do not index sites based on relevance. You would rather ignore relevant ones because they email you?

Where did I say that? I simply said emailing an editor is not going to get you any special treatment. If you up it, as the newsletter suggested, you run the risk of irritating the editor and do your case for getting listed no good at all and may harm it. There have been a number of permanent bans for sites that esculated things to higher levels with threats.

CBP

[collusion]

Exactly what I am saying. You said that harm may come from an email sent to an editor. Guess what I don't give a rats behind. I do not need DMOZ for a top 10 listing. DMOZ can suck an egg. You yourself said that you would like to go after every site the person ever submitted and delete it along with anybody that knows the person. That is EXACTLY what this is about. You were just unable to be quiet about it. EVERY DMOZ editor is like that. They take vengence upon submitters because they can. I will single handedly take DMOZ down. I GUARANTEE it.

[cbp]

You yourself said that you would like to go after every site the person ever submitted and delete it along with anybody that knows the person

Where did I come close to saying that?

CBP

[collusion]

cbp I am talking to both you and flood here. This is what Flood said:

Originally Posted by flood6

Those emails spark fantasies of me going through the entire directory and not just removing all of their sites, but their families' and friends' sites, too. Sites that belong to anyone they've ever talked to..

Also you said that you respond negatively to emails. Both of you are wrong here. You claim that you have no way of manipulating things because of the internal workings of DMOZ but you yourself are saying that an email from a submitted may change the destiny of the URL submitted. Tell me I'm wrong.

[collusion]

And just to avoid confusion again.. I am the one that will take DMOZ down. I will make a directory that is based on relevant sites and not prejudice from any editors.

[flood6]

Originally Posted by collusion

And just to avoid confusion again.. I am the one that will take DMOZ down. I will make a directory that is based on relevant sites and not prejudice from any editors.

I think you're taking my comments out of context.

I'm sure your directory will be great. New inoovative ideas is what makes our industry evolve.

[collusion]

I am not trying to take any comments out of context at all. If you say it you must think it. I am just pointing out that every DMOZ editor I know of is like that and they actually act on that belief.

Goodnight. Any new posts I will respond to tomorrow.

[cbp]

I will make a directory that is based on relevant sites and not prejudice from any editors.

100 people working full time for a year would not be able to build a directory as big as DMOZ.

CBP

[collusion]

I do believe me working alone will catch up seeing that no sites are ever added to DMOZ. That is the issue here remember?

[cbp]

I do believe me working alone will catch up seeing that no sites are ever added to DMOZ. That is the issue here remember?

I have bookmarked his thread and will bump it in 12 months and we will see what you have achieved.

CBP

[collusion]

good for you. I have my programmer working on the directory and when it is ready I will announce it. There will be a set of rules to fight against spam in my directory but I will guarantee that there will not be 50,000 sites waiting to be indexed. They will either be indexed or rejected and the submitter will be notified by email if it was rejected and why. Nobody will have to harass my staff to find out why they are not indexed. Sounds like a plan. Maybe DMOZ should do that. It is simple to implement. A dropdown menu in the back end of the editing where an editor can pick the reason for rejection and the system will automatically send the email. But DMOZ editors are too good for that I guess so it will never work.

[Jayms]

I look forward to seeing it also. Remember, it's quality first then quantity. DMOZ is backwards in that regard which is why so many sites are stale.

[collusion]

I agree. One thing about DMOZ is people submit their site and after it is indexed, they change it to a Smartpage or something that wasnt seen by an editor. Like affiliate sites or sites that are just horrible or down.

[GapBridge]

Originally Posted by cbp

100 people working full time for a year would not be able to build a directory as big as DMOZ.

CBP

Size alone is nothing.

[GapBridge]

One thing Collusion has mentioned is sites being down.
I have noticed a large number of web sites that are down or where the content has moved (such as cnn.com pages listed).
It seems to me that the directory has become unmanagable.
If you rely on DMOZ to find listings for something you are searching for you will simply not be satisfied overall.
I personally cannot see Google using DMOZ for too much longer since the competition between search engines will make it necessary for them to find better results in order to be competitive long term as well as be taken serious.
Let's face it: the overall results that DMOZ supplies do overall taint the search engine results which does affect the overall web surfers.
Mike

[LinkMaster]

Originally Posted by Elite Skills

Google hates unrelated links on content rich pages...

This unfounded myth has already been debunked long ago. Along with many other unfounded SEO forum rumors. Most of the people who start them have no search engine positioning to speak of because they are too scared to trade links with "unrelated" sites.

Given the fact that it will be almost impossible to get your competitors to trade links with you, there is usually no way to get any kind of decent ranking without getting your link on unrelated sites.

The guy that started this rumor was the same guy who said that exchanging links was frowned on by the search engines. His site is still lost at the bottom of the SERPS.

?????