What is spam?

[SPC2]

Janeth recently asked "what is spam?" She asked several times, but she only managed to get one answer. Mel wrote that spam is "Sites Positioned Above Mine" - a nice answer, but not exactly accurate

Search engine spam is whatever the engines think it is, and they don't need to say it publically. If an engine does not think that hidden text is spam, then for that engine, hidden text is not spam. Whatever an engine doesn't want, is spam for that engine. That's pretty much what spam is.

Some of the engines have been kind enough to tell us some of the things that they think of as spam. Unfortunately, some people are blind, and treat what the engines say as dogma. For instance, Google refers to "sneaky redirects" as being spam, and I've come across people who insist that all redirects are, therefore, spam. But it isn't true. Some auto-redirects make a site function properly, and they are not seen as spam by the engines. I have one such site that was examined by Matt Cutts, and he found the auto-redirects to be fine.

Doorway pages and cloaking are two other spam things that Google mentions in their guidelines, but they too have valid uses, and are not always spam in the engines' eyes.

So there is no definitive statement as to the spam methods - not even in the engines' guidelines. Perhaps the best way to decide if something is or isn't spam is to ask whether or not the thing is done for people/site or for the engines, but even that isn't foolproof. We all optimize page Titles for the engines, rather than for people, and we all tailor anchor text for the engines rather than for people, even though we keep in people in mind with both of those things.

[ctabuk]

'we all optimize for the search engines not the people' Sorry SPC2 - but I don't follow that at all. I optimize for the search terms that people are most likely to search for, surely that is the ultimate goal?

[Andilinks]

The subject of the other discussion had moved to the motivation of the posters clashing with Ken which is why I considered this subject a red herring there. janeth did succeed in derailing that discussion anyway, as was her goal.

But as a new thread this is a legitimate topic, I'll jump in here.

Google is still the only engine that matters when you begin, though that could change. The details of what Google considers spam are kept proprietary for the obvious reason that if they published them in their guidelines the spammers would swarm them like a pack of unemployed lawyers looking for loopholes.

So Google's stated overall goals for its search result quality are the best place to begin looking for what is likely to be considered spam.

A pretty good guideline, but not one that will make potential spammers happy, is that anything that gives a site an unfair advantage is either considered spam, should be, or will eventually be. That's an ideal of perfection, somewhat like liberty and justice, which are nice to shout about but don't exist in reality.

The problem with trying to hold to a perfect standard is that is your competitors are not likely to also hold to that standard. So until Google actually figures out how to eliminate spam effectively it is a dangerous world out there...

If you be fair then the spammers win, if you fight the spammers with their own techniques you become one of them and risk being banned somewhere down the line.

Mel's cute acronym is indeed the typical site owner's point of view. Problem is as SPC2 observed, the site owner has no voice is saying what spam is, search engines do.

Andi

[ADAM Web Design]

Andi's got a point. Spam isn't necessarily what the search engines say it is, and what they ban for.

There are probably millions of sites that have been reported to Big G et. al and have not yet been algorithmically dealt with.

Some of the things I'd consider to be spammy personally (and many of them would be very difficult to determine via algorithm):

1) Hidden text that isn't part of a submenu or another DHTML-based feature used to enhance a site;

2) Scraper sites.

3) A new variant on scraper sites I'm starting to see where, instead of SERPs, advertiser links are used. (It's sort of a combo of scraper sites and affiliate spam.)

4) Since I just said it, affiliate spam.

5) Sites offering no unique content and that are in a position do so (e.g. sites that reproduce articles that aren't necessarily article reproduction sites).

6) Closed networks of relatively unrelated sites/link farms.

7) Sites that offer different content to the users than they do to the engines by using Javascript redirects, framed pages, etc.

I think that's a pretty good starting point. I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them.

[crankydave]

As for me...

"Something Percieved As Manipulative"

Intent does not matter to an algorithm. A particular technique that may be considered spam can possibly be used in a legitimate manner. Hidden divs come to mind. To the algorithm or filter... spam.

Along the same vein a parcticular technique not considered spam can be used for spamming. Attaching ALT attributes to decorations would be such an example.

If a SE does not want particular techniques used, they need to not only be clear on what those techniques are, they need to take swift action when they are used.

Spammers are consistantly looking for new means to manipulate rankings. Quite simply, they will use what lasts the longest over and over again. If a SE does not want invisible text for example, step on within days instead of months if at all. The risk/reward just became unattractive and they move on. You're spending less time squashing this practice and have more time to spend looking at others.

Loopholes do not matter. If the spammers are busy looking for loopholes it means the techniques they're looking for loopholes in aren't working. As an SE, be clear on what techniques considered spam, work swiftly to punish it, you'll have a better chance of keeping up with it.

Much easier said than done. Perhaps Google can hire all of Oregon.

Dave

[Andilinks]

Intent does not matter to an algorithm.

But it matters very much to those who design and implement them. If your goal is to trick the current algorithm, then no, intent does not matter.

work swiftly to punish it...

"Swiftly" has a very specific meaning for me in this context. Search engines must identify spam techniques and punish them before the spam punishes the honest web sites that the spam is targeting. Unless that happens entreprenurial spirit, ecommerce, the general economy and societal goals are at risk.

When you spam you are hurting all humanity, you are much like a disease in that respect.

Andi

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

When you spam you are hurting all humanity, you are much like a disease in that respect.

Andi

Wow, spam is a crime against humanity??A bit melodramatic don't you think??

How far are people willing to go to declare spam?? Is creating hundreds of links to your site, on your own, all with the same anchor text and posting it everywhere you can find a place to post it spam?? I could make case that it is, and that it's against the original intent of what hyperlinking was meant to be all about.. But anyone that ranks for anything does it.. Does that make all of us spammers??

Sitting in judgement of valid business techniques, no matter how you personally view them, really is a waste of time and effort.. Are they 'ethical' techniques?? Depends on who you ask.. Are they something that you would do yourself?? Again, it depends..

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

The subject of the other discussion had moved to the motivation of the posters clashing with Ken which is why I considered this subject a red herring there. janeth did succeed in derailing that discussion anyway, as was her goal.

My goal was to stay on topic with the orginal post. But I see now that your able to read minds.

How nice!

Originally Posted by Andilinks

Google is still the only engine that matters when you begin, though that could change.

Not so. One of my sites got around 1,000 visitors yesterday (Sunday) all from MSN.

Originally Posted by Andilinks

A pretty good guideline, but not one that will make potential spammers happy, is that anything that gives a site an unfair advantage is either considered spam, should be, or will eventually be.

So if you can write better then me your a spammer?

Originally Posted by Andilinks

If you be fair then the spammers win, if you fight the spammers with their own techniques you become one of them and risk being banned somewhere down the line.

If no one knows what it is then how do you know rather you have become one of them or not?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

But it matters very much to those who design and implement them. If your goal is to trick the current algorithm, then no, intent does not matter.

"Swiftly" has a very specific meaning for me in this context. Search engines must identify spam techniques and punish them before the spam punishes the honest web sites that the spam is targeting. Unless that happens entreprenurial spirit, ecommerce, the general economy and societal goals are at risk.

When you spam you are hurting all humanity, you are much like a disease in that respect.

Andi

Nor does it matter if you're not trying to trick the current algorithm if the results are the same.

Especially in such an instance such as this, I disagree with your assessment. It doesn't mean it's not spam and should be dealt with as spam. It also does not make that site owner or webmaster much like a disease that is hurting all humanity either.

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

1) Hidden text that isn't part of a submenu or another DHTML-based feature used to enhance a site;

I agree with this one as Google says they don't like it.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

2) Scraper sites.

Also agree

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

3) A new variant on scraper sites I'm starting to see where, instead of SERPs, advertiser links are used. (It's sort of a combo of scraper sites and affiliate spam.)

This could go further, what about directories? I hate when I do a search and get a page full of more links.

It has happened a lot lately and the people even seem to use Google ads.

Not sure how they make money if there using Googles ads to show Google ads?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

4) Since I just said it, affiliate spam.

If the site has information along with the affliate links, would you still consider that spam?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

5) Sites offering no unique content and that are in a position do so (e.g. sites that reproduce articles that aren't necessarily article reproduction sites).

So if you add unique content in the site along with articles others have written, does that make it ok?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

6) Closed networks of relatively unrelated sites/link farms.

Would diretories fall into this?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

7) Sites that offer different content to the users than they do to the engines by using Javascript redirects, framed pages, etc.

I agree with this one.

Thanks Adam that does help.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

How far are people willing to go to declare spam?? Is creating hundreds of links to your site, on your own, all with the same anchor text and posting it everywhere you can find a place to post it spam??

At what point do you stop marketing your site because of fear of being called a spammer?

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

'we all optimize for the search engines not the people' Sorry SPC2 - but I don't follow that at all.

Huh? I didn't say that. Read my posts again, and you'll no doubt find your error.

[Andilinks]

Wow, spam is a crime against humanity??A bit melodramatic don't you think??

Perhaps melodramatic for this thread/forum. As an issue for policy makers I think it is right on target.

Andi

[freehits]

Nicely posted Adam, I agree that 1,2,3 and 7 on that list are all almost without exception as you say.

One of my most irritating find are these

http://www.webrunnerthingysample.com...www.mysite.com

then they pass themselves off as an archiver of sort.

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

The subject of the other discussion had moved to the motivation of the posters clashing with Ken which is why I considered this subject a red herring there. janeth did succeed in derailing that discussion anyway, as was her goal.

Please avoid sniping at people in this thread - especially when you have no way of knowing what other people's motives are. Just out of interest, other people took that thread off-topic with the "opinion" stuff

Some people say that anything that is designed to manipulate the rankings is spam, and I agree with that. I base my view on what I believe - that the engines want to index and rank pages (and links) that are in a natural state. It's my view that the engines don't want us to do anything that is specifically intended to improve rankings, except to ensure that our pages are crawlable, but that's not really to improve rankings - it's to get pages indexd and ranked in the first place, which is what the engines want. They accept, and even suggest, a few things, like including the searchterms in the text, and Titles, but I think that's more to do with them being able to list the pages for the right queries, than for us to improve the rankings.

So it's my view that whatever a person does that is intended to improve the rankings is spam from the engines' point of view, although they accept the most minor bits of it.

A general rule of thumb has been to ask yourself, "would I do this if the search engines didn't exist?" (I think it might actually be in Google's guidelines), and no SEO can honestly answer "no" to that question - which necessarily makes all SEOs spammers - whitehats, et al.

Originally Posted by Andilinks

When you spam you are hurting all humanity, you are much like a disease in that respect.

Untrue. Spamming doesn't hurt anyone, except when auto-redirects take people to pages that they didn't want to go to. In fact, apart from that method, spamming to improve rankings helps everyone by getting relevant pages to the top of relevant searches.

Adam. I don't know how framed pages got in there - I've never heard of framed pages being associated with spam. I use frames in some of my sites, and they sure aren't spam.

[freehits]

With the talk of the many ways to perceive the same thing I am reminded of back in grade school when they taught kids about not talking to strangers.

You were shown some photos of different people, some creepy looking and some well dressed, and the kids consistantly said the creepy looking was a stranger but not the others. The point being al were strangers, no matter how they appeared based ont he fact that you dont know them.

I see so many of these larger budget sites

http://www.magicyellow.com/white_pages_people.html
http://homerentalads.com/

and these are ranking all over with 200K to 2 million pages listed, and I see hundreds of links all placed with no other intent than to feed search engines. That homerentalads site sominate many merkets I see, and may have alot of information, but its listed in a way that it is almost impossible to be navigated by the links that flood the pages. 90% of the page is just to 'spam' the engine.

When i search for a restaurant in my city, I am handed 9 Directory Sites:

cityguide.aol.com/charlotte/main.adp
cityguide.aol.com/charlotte/dining/main.adp
charlotte.diningguide.com/
www.fodors.com/miniguides/mgresults. cfm?cur_section=din&destination=charlotte@242
www.americascuisine.com/city.cfm/city/charlotte
dinesite.com/city/city-6398/??&t=0
http://www.gayot.com/restaurantpages...te.php?code=CR
travel.yahoo.com/ p-travelguide-2737778-charlotte_restaurants-i -
charlotte.citysearch.com/section/restaurants_bars

AND 1 local site. on the first page.

I see these as going against item #5 on adam's list.

5)Sites offering no unique content and that are in a position do so.

I think the issue goes far beyond sneaky people trying to make trouble, the strangers are also the people with the fancy but semi usless sites eating up page one in some markets.

I think google should add a link at the top of all results saying "see yellow pages for this search"

besuase now we have
http://www.google.com/search?q=yello...&start=20&sa=N

510 Million results under 'yellow pages', and the top 100 are all the same thing and all provide milions of pages of duplicate content.

Then we can drop all these sites that all provide the same information and let some local players provide more relevent enlightening content.

[janeth]

I agree with hoptoo on getting the directories when doing local searches.

I was playing around one day looking for web designers in different places.

I found directories in the top ten on almost every search.

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by hoptoo

I think google should add a link at the top of all results saying "see yellow pages for this search"

LOL!!!

Actually, when you find a set of results that really don't include much in the way of 'real' stuff for people, then even I would say that it's bad for users. I don't come across it though, so I guess it isn't massively widespread.

My view of acceptable spam is when a site that has something to offer uses spam to get top rankings for relevant searchterms, because the engines aren't naturally placing them at the top. If it's pages get into the top 10, and are what people are looking for when doing the search, then the spam is fine as far as I am concerned.

All those affiliate sites, scraper sites, etc. are not good from my point of view, although if they don't dominate the serps, then I have no real objections to them. Many of them, including those directories, probably aren't even spam, and are just there because the engines rank them that way.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

When you spam you are hurting all humanity, you are much like a disease in that respect.

Originally Posted by SPC2

Untrue. Spamming doesn't hurt anyone, except when auto-redirects take people to pages that they didn't want to go to. In fact, apart from that method, spamming to improve rankings helps everyone by getting relevant pages to the top of relevant searches.

Most people that work hard on their site and get them to rank higher are the same people that spend time and money on the content and design.

This means that the nicer sites rank higher.

I agree with Phil that spammers help the results and do not hurt them.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by SPC2

My view of acceptable spam is when a site that has something to offer uses spam to get top rankings for relevant searchterms, because the engines aren't naturally placing them at the top. If it's pages get into the top 10, and are what people are looking for when doing the search, then the spam is fine as far as I am concerned.

I disagree. An athlete that uses steroids to get to the finish line first because they can't get there naturally is not O.K.

I don't disagree that perfectly relevant sites spam their way to get there but the fact that they are relevant does not mean spamming is fine. In my mind, it is not. The end does not jusify the means.

Relevancy does not justify spamming.

Dave

[pemburung]

To me spam is not a SE thing; people, or perhaps the internet/www are spammed; SEs only deliver it. SEs may be manipulated to find and rank the spam highly, but it's still readers at the end. Just as with email spam, it's not the email providers that are spammed, but the recipients even though the providers deliver it.

Spam is any web page that is delivered to a reader that is not a useful response to the search term, and has a purpose other than providing what the searcher was looking for. We can argue endlessly about what is useful, but as was said above, a page with endless links to restaurants around the world, rather than a page relating directly to the restaurants of Charlotte, is spam for a search for "Charlotte restaurants." It may not be spam if searching for a list of the world's restaurants. Another example: a site that is about booking hotels, but has pages optimized for a whole range or travel search terms that it does not focus on, hoping to sell a hotel to someone who is searching for a tour, so optimizes "tour" pages while not offering them, or just links to other sites where it can collect a fee. If it got there inadvertently, as can happen with legitimate sites that the SE's algorithm favors above more relevant sites, it's not spam, it's an SE problem.

If a page is created primarily to make money for the owner while not providing a true service - think endless pages only there for adsense clicks, or paid directories that feed off untutored site owners - it is spam. Yes, there are many businesses competing for the same dollar, but legitimate businesses get customers by providing a service tht others don't, be it product line, location, price point, etc. A store that has a big sign in front advertising 'discount jeans" that actually sells radios is a spam store. A store that has the same sign, but only tells you to go next door, to the real store, then collects a fee for directing that customer who only got there because they were fooled away from the real store is a spam store.

Any SEO technique can be hijacked to help produce spam, and any technique used in producing spam sites can have legitimate purposes, so the technique is not the issue in the most general sense. The issue is the resulting page, and when it appears on a SERP for what search term, and how it helps the searcher meet their needs for that search.

Spam does hurt people. I need to find information on the web for my business. Wading through spam takes time, and my time is money. As it reduces the number of clients I can service in a year, I must increase my charges to those clients to cover the wasted time. They pay for the spam. I have a sick cat. I'm looking for a solution, as my local vet can't help, but there's a world of experience out there, so I go to the web. Spam sites could fill up so many pages on so many search terms that I can't get to the useful pages; in addition (as we have seen), overzealous but now necessary SE spam filters remove or relegate legitimate sites to beyond Pluto and so are also not seen.

It's not a matter at trying to create a list of techniques, or definitions. It's the old "we know it when we see it." And we know it when we create it. Ranking effort is not spammy, if there's something useful to rank. That's legitimate competition. Discounts at a store are not spammy, but they drive customers to that particular store. That's business. Offering discounts to get customers inside, but having none of the advertised product, is spam.

[SPC2]

Dave.

I agree with you about the athlete, but it's not a good parallel. Let's look at a hypothetical example...

There are stacks of hotels in Miami, most of them having their own website. But a search only displays 10 of them on the first page for 'miami hotels' (forget about other possible highly ranked pages for this example). One of the low ranked hotels isn't getting any business from the engines, so it decides to do something about it, and spams its way into the top 10. It could have IBLed its way there, but it chose to spam its way there.

Questions:-

(1) Did the hotel do wrong to takes steps to get it into the top 10?

(2) Would the hotel have been right to use a non-spam method (e.g. IBLs) to get it into the top 10?

(3) If it did right to take steps, and if it's only the method used that you find fault with, why do you find fault with it since the end result is the same?

It is clear that the method used to get the site's page into the top 10 doesn't actually harm anyone (except the page that dropped out of the top 10, but that's what seo is all about), so why is one method ok and another method not ok?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Andilinks

Well, I don't have to snipe at you when you declare yourself like that! I strongly suspected I was in a spammers den, no need to wonder about motivations any more. I don't think anything I say here will be productive.

JFTR... I'm not a spammer. In two threads I've participated recently you've pointed to participants within those threads as being spammers. Although I don't agree with spamming and spammers, I don't hold the utter disdain for them as you appear to.

As far as being productive, I've read your comments and opinions, and up until this last post, I wouldn't characterize your comments and opinions as unproductive.

Originally Posted by pemburung

Spam is any web page that is delivered to a reader that is not a useful response to the search term, and has a purpose other than providing what the searcher was looking for.

Hmmmmmmmmm... I disagree with this too. Guess I'm being rather disagreeable today.

So, if a searcher gets a search result where the top 10 results are useful but are mirror pages of each other that would not be spam? How about half a page of invisible text but the page itself is usefull to the searcher? Perhaps a scraper page full of useful links? Not spam?

In my mind anyway, relevancy and spam are totally different concepts.

Dave

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by SPC2

Dave.

I agree with you about the athlete, but it's not a good parallel. Let's look at a hypothetical example...

There are stacks of hotels in Miami, most of them having their own website. But a search only displays 10 of them on the first page for 'miami hotels' (forget about other possible highly ranked pages for this example). One of the low ranked hotels isn't getting any business from the engines, so it decides to do something about it, and spams its way into the top 10. It could have IBLed its way there, but it chose to spam its way there.

Questions:-

(1) Did the hotel do wrong to takes steps to get it into the top 10?

(2) Would the hotel have been right to use a non-spam method (e.g. IBLs) to get it into the top 10?

(3) If it did right to take steps, and if it's only the method used that you find fault with, why do you find fault with it since the end result is the same?

It is clear that the method used to get the site's page into the top 10 doesn't actually harm anyone (except the page that dropped out of the top 10, but that's what seo is all about), so why is one method ok and another method not ok?

I try real hard not to answer questions with questions but...

Why is invisible text not ok?

Why is cloaking no ok?

In your example the individual is deciding that their particular site is deemed more relevent and not the ranking agency. In this case the SE. The best levels of relevancy can only be determined if the means by which the ranks are determined are applied consistantly and methods used by the sites to be ranked remain within certain specifications.

In your hotel example, it assumes that the site could achieve the same ranking without spamming. If you applied the same logic to my athlete example, if the athlete could have gotten to the finishline first without steroids, then it would be OK if they used them?

Dave

[kgun]

Don't you not require too much from a SE (programme)? It is not better in fighting spam than the programmers that made the algorithms.

I am quite sure, the professional spammeres, are not members here, but may be visitors. And I am sure, that there are spammers that make money and lie light years ahead of the SE spam fighting algorithms. Email spamming is illegal (criminal) in some countries. Is every form of spam illegal? Cloacking is regarded as spam by Google, but not regarded illegal, generally.

And what about persons / comapanies writing quality content that nobody find because no knowledge of SEO expertice. Is
The death of spam = The death of SEO?

Conlusion:
A data programme is plain stupid. I does what it is programmed to do, nothing more nothing less. Everyhing a SE can do to make content (ranking) independent of coding is good in my personal view.

[SPC2]

I'd rather you'd answered the questions, Dave, and I still hope you will.

The example that I gave was such that the websites of all of the hotels in Miami are equally relevant for the 'miami hotels' query, but only 10 of them can be in the top 10. That's not hypothetical. For most queries, there are many results that are as relevant as those in the top 10, and more relevant than some of them, but they can't all be in the top 10. I don't think that you'd suggest leaving the engines to rank them where they will. If everyone did that, there would be no seo.

So I'd like you to answer those questions if you will. I don't mind answering yours afterwards, but I asked first and it's better not to complicate things unnecessarily.

[kgun]

Ok, I mean I answered indirectly. Do not confuse me now with link spam, ...

My definition of SE Spam.

1. Any technique a SE sees as a method to improve (manipulate) the position on the SERP's (independent of human beings perception of content - what is that?).

May be better

2. Any technique a SE sees as a programmed method to improve (manipulate) the position on the SERP's (independent of human beings perception of content - what is that?).

Synthesis.

3. Any method used to manipulate the position on the SERP independant of content.

4. Any method used to manipulate the position on the SERP.

Perhaps the concept of SE spam is misleading. I know what it is when I see it in my inbox, but that is also partly my own responsibility.
Who will throw the first stone?

[pemburung]

Crankydave:
"Guess I'm being rather disagreeable today."

CD, I've been reading a lot of posts by you lately, and to my mind none of them have been disagreeable. Disagreeing at times, but not disagreeable.

I was starting to wonder if your body had been taken over by the pods... Thanks goodness not.


"So, if a searcher gets a search result where the top 10 results are useful but are mirror pages of each other that would not be spam?"

First page is not spam, the rest are. (However, if each of these pages had been optimized for local search, say for a pizza chain, but the SE still ranked them in the way it did, then it's not spamming, but an SE problem see above.

"How about half a page of invisible text but the page itself is usefull to the searcher? Perhaps a scraper page full of useful links? Not spam?"

I said above I don't believe it's techniques that are spam, but the result. I agree with with some parts, where using what is often considered a spam technique to get a legitimate site well-ranked may not be spam. There's a continuum from typing up words on a page in plain text and publishing it to a thousand invisible keyterms on each of 5000 linked doorways, an extensive link scheme, etc devoted to getting one page ranked. If the resulting page is highly relevant to the search terms, and presents a page of just what the searcher is looking for, that's a very difficult call, IMO. If all that results in a viagra ad for the search term "holiday in tibet", it's an easy call. Some things may be along the lines of a price war, where the deepest pockets win, rather than the product per se. In this case, like some of SPC2's examples, the consumer actually wins (unless ultimately competition is reduced in this example.) (Now, it's hard to believe a scaper site has more use than a legitimate site - directory or similar. Most importantly, they have not been created to benefit the searcher.)

That's why I say that it's not the technique, but the result - the page itself in the context of utility to the searcher, and the intent of the page creator, that constitutes spam.

[kgun]

I said above I don't believe it's techniques that are spam, but the result.

Good.

<digression>
1. But what if the result were otherwise without plain stupid algorithms?

2. What about SE's that don't have the same algorithmes?
</digression>

Did I hear new words, Google, Yahoo, MSN se, Mamma, .... spam?

We need more words than a single spam word

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by SPC2

I'd rather you'd answered the questions, Dave, and I still hope you will.

The example that I gave was such that the websites of all of the hotels in Miami are equally relevant for the 'miami hotels' query, but only 10 of them can be in the top 10. That's not hypothetical. For most queries, there are many results that are as relevant as those in the top 10, and more relevant than some of them, but they can't all be in the top 10. I don't think that you'd suggest leaving the engines to rank them where they will. If everyone did that, there would be no seo.

So I'd like you to answer those questions if you will. I don't mind answering yours afterwards, but I asked first and it's better not to complicate things unnecessarily.

Sorry, I answered them in a round about way let me try and be clearer.

If I were Google I certainly wouldn't want me or you deciding what is relevant. Oh no, I'd want me or you to adhere to certain guidelines. Besides you and me, how many other hundreds or thousands of sites believe they are just as relevent as the top 10? Can't have them all trying to decide what is most relevant by any means neccessary.

(1) Did the hotel do wrong to takes steps to get it into the top 10?

If they used techniques known to be spamming then yes they did.

(2) Would the hotel have been right to use a non-spam method (e.g. IBLs) to get it into the top 10?

Yes, since then all sites would be using the same tools available to them. Whether or not they use all the tools or in the same way will naturally vary just like in any business. Comparing apples to apples.

(3) If it did right to take steps, and if it's only the method used that you find fault with, why do you find fault with it since the end result is the same?

This assumes that the end result would be the same. This is an unknown. This assumes that any site can be taken to a top ranking using non-spam methods. If this were the case then we'd have all sites ranked in the top 10 which cannot happen.

I would think that since Google depends, at least in part, upon the relevancy that they delivered they'd want to be the ones determining the relevancy and not site owners, webmasters, SEO's etc that believe their sites are the most relevant.

Dave

[kgun]

Janeth,

did you remove the link to your gambling (betting) related site or do I remember wrong? Why? May be it was a very good gambling related site

Or do we all, especially I, spam this forum with the links we think are best for SE ranking?

[kgun]

Should I replace the link to OopSchool and be called the spamking?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

I said above I don't believe it's techniques that are spam, but the result.

Good.

I believe it's the technique as well as the result the technique provides. Deliver indentical unsolicited information via the telephone, snail mail, telegram, email or fax. All different techniques, all spam whether or not you get the message.

Dave

[janeth]

Ok Phil now I have a problem.

First you said

Some people say that anything that is designed to manipulate the rankings is spam, and I agree with that.

Then you said

Originally Posted by SPC2

It could have IBLed its way there, but it chose to spam its way there.

If it had IBLed its way there, it would have still been spam.

Anything we do to our sites that make them rank better is spam.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by kgun

Janeth,

did you remove the link to your gambling (betting) related site or do I remember wrong? Why? May be it was a very good gambling related site

You are correct but I have gotten rid of that site.

Originally Posted by kgun

Or do we all, especially I, spam this forum with the links we think are best for SE ranking?

Do you think the anchor text in these sigs. help ranking?

[pemburung]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I believe it's the technique as well as the result the technique provides. Deliver indentical unsolicited information via the telephone, snail mail, telegram, email or fax. All different techniques, all spam whether or not you get the message.

Dave

Damn disagreeable.

Actually I think your example supports my premise - spam is the result not the technique. Unless I'm reading it wrongly.

[kgun]

It should be

No,

but message too short.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by pemburung

Damn disagreeable.

Actually I think your example supports my premise - spam is the result not the technique. Unless I'm reading it wrongly.

LOL!

Okay, If you were sent the same unsolicited message via phone, fax, email, snail mail and telegram, but you did not get those messages, (Perhaps the Borg Queen stopped them all ) are they somehow not spam because you did not get them?

Dave

[pemburung]

Ah, I see what you mean. Interesting. So a page exists out there. I'm saying depending on who is looking at it, and how it is relevant or not to their search, defines it as spam (this is a very short version, obviously there is more detail including coding and intent.) You're saying the way the page was coded makes it spam, regardless. SPC2 says that as long as the page doesn't actually knife you in the left kidney with a stiletto it's not spam. Kgun says - well, who knows what kgun says.

I think it is spam if it is a potential result that was stopped; so I see your your point that it was designed in a spammy way, so the SE filter picked it up. Ergo, spam is technique, not result.

[williamc]

I tend to think of SE spam as more of an intent rather than any technique. Any technique, be it said to be spammy or otherwise, has valid uses. However, intentionally ranking for non-relevent keywords is basically all I call spam.

We all have differing opinions on what spam is, which is why Janeth, rightfully, asked for a clear definition we could all agree with at least in most parts. Because until that is done, nobody here can call anyone else a spammer, especially someone who could not even realize that other thread was all about spam.

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by janeth

Do you think the anchor text in these sigs. help ranking?

MSN Yes. Google and Yahoo, no.

Re-visiting a question earlier in this thread: Would I still make my pages the same if Google (or another engine) didn't exist? NO! I'd be busy writing a search engine to make myself a million bucks a day!

If I learn how to effectively write, and it happens to work well for the search engines as well as convincing people to browse my site and make a purchase, then it could be spam as far as my competitors are concerned - but the usefulness makes it tough to say it isn't deserving of having the results it gets.

If I have the best source of information and people naturally link to me, then it's not spam by most anyone's definition. What is it that starts to change that view then? Is it unnatural links? Is it content that is of low quality? I don't think we've come up with any answers yet in this thread and we may never come up with answers.

To the casual search engine user, spam is completely different than what it is to those of us here. A search for Charlotte or any other geographical specific search isn't refined enough to warrant much other than a list of everything in the area. Charlotte web designers would be best served by a listing of a large number of designers. We may have our own reasons from an SEO point of view why this isn't good, but we're not the ones that the engines need to keep happy. The searchers are.

Scraper sites may provide useful information in some cases as well. We ran across a scraper today that listed sources of articles on tool batteries, gave the introduction of the article, and then a link to the full article. Nothing more than a scraper, yet a reasonable way to find information on the topic. Sure, it looked like SERPs in many ways, but if we discount this completely then we're calling SERPs spam.

As much as I despise many of these sites, if they have relevance to the user they should be considered reasonable results. The level of relevance is what most of us have trouble with. First page doesn't seem fair most of the time, but it's the SE's game and those pages just fall within the lines.

Brian.

[freehits]

Originally Posted by brian.mark

MSN Yes. Google and Yahoo, no.

Wow at least I know im not crazy, I almost typed this same thing Brian.

MSN yes definately, Yahoo - Yes 3 months ago, but not now. Google no.

but on the other note, your mention that something with a city name doesnt really warrant first page billing for individual results, may show as facts in the serps, but its a fact that is flawed.

I think a "miami hotel" or "charlotte restaurant" that can never seem to find themselves buried below, magicyellow.com,about.com and other useless garbage may feel that their search is important, and this is a flaw.

These searches are maybe 2% of all citysearch traffic, but they are 100% of a hotel or restaurants traffic n that city, and they are more relevent to what was searched.

How many sites listing the address and phone number do we really need?

Not 10.

[kgun]

When a concept is everything, it is nothing.

My operational definition of

SERP Spam:
By SERP spam we mean any thechnique, not related to content, that results in a manipulated position on the SERP's of one or more SE.

Content Spam:

This may be circle reasoning.

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by CrankyDave

If I were Google I certainly wouldn't want me or you deciding what is relevant.

I agree with that completely. In fact, I wrote it in an article a few years ago. The problem with it is that everyone must accept Google's rankings for their site, and do nothing to improve them. But that doesn't happen - hence seo.

The end result in my hypothetical example would be the same, Dave - the site's page would be in the top 10. What I can't understand is why you can say that it's ok to do things to improve the rankings, but it's not ok to use certain methods to improve them, when those methods hurt nobody. What is it about them that you find to be at fault?

The reason I am asking is this. Hidden text, for example, doesn't affect users one way or the other - it hurts nobody. It can sometimes be the reason why a page ranks higher than it otherwise would, but a page ranking higher doesn't hurt anyone - especially not surfers. So, using that as an example of a spam method, what is wrong with hidden text?


I will now answer your questions, as I said I would...

Why is invisible text not ok?

Why is cloaking not ok?

I don't find fault with those methods. As long as the page that gets the ranking causes a user to end up on a page that contains what s/he expects it to contain after clicking on its listing in the serps, I find no fault with how the page got the ranking. If it got there by spam, it helps the user. If it got there by non-spam it also helps the user. I can't find any fault with it.


Janeth. You are right - I did say that doing anything to manipulate the rankings is spam, and I also implied that link building is a non-spam method of improving rankings. But I got away with it until you came along, didn't I

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by kgun

SERP Spam:
By SERP spam we mean any thechnique, not related to content, that results in a manipulated position on the SERP's of one or more SE.

How about:-

Any technique, not related to content, that attempts to result in an improved position in the SERP's of one or more SEs.

After all, spam might fail and not change the ranking.

Why "not related to content"?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by SPC2

I agree with that completely. In fact, I wrote it in an article a few years ago. The problem with it is that everyone must accept Google's rankings for their site, and do nothing to improve them. But that doesn't happen - hence seo.

The end result in my hypothetical example would be the same, Dave - the site's page would be in the top 10. What I can't understand is why you can say that it's ok to do things to improve the rankings, but it's not ok to use certain methods to improve them, when those methods hurt nobody. What is it about them that you find to be at fault?

The reason I am asking is this. Hidden text, for example, doesn't affect users one way or the other - it hurts nobody. It can sometimes be the reason why a page ranks higher than it otherwise would, but a page ranking higher doesn't hurt anyone - especially not surfers. So, using that as an example of a spam method, what is wrong with hidden text?


I will now answer your questions, as I said I would...

I don't find fault with those methods. As long as the page that gets the ranking causes a user to end up on a page that contains what s/he expects it to contain after clicking on its listing in the serps, I find no fault with how the page got the ranking. If it got there by spam, it helps the user. If it got there by non-spam it also helps the user. I can't find any fault with it.


Janeth. You are right - I did say that doing anything to manipulate the rankings is spam, and I also implied that link building is a non-spam method of improving rankings. But I got away with it until you came along, didn't I

You're assuming the end result would be the same. You're assuming that your hypothetical site would rank high regardless of the technique. What the methods prevent and hurt, is being able to compare apples to apples. When that happens you're manipulating rankings to suit your own sense of relevance.

No, noone must accept Google's rankings and do nothing about them. Plenty of things to do to make your site is more relevent without trying to manipulate the rankings.

I don't believe that SEO should equate to Spam Everywhere Often if you think the site is relevant.

Dave

[greeneagle]

"but on the other note, your mention that something with a city name doesnt really warrant first page billing for individual results, may show as facts in the serps, but its a fact that is flawed."

Many searchers want "local relevant" and modify search enquiries demanding local results for a number of reasons.

When I use a geographical modifier, I really and truly want locally specific confined SERP.

I have no idea how prevalent geographical modifiers are in searcher's requests statistically, but I would think they are pretty high.

Living outside Houston, TX, I don't want to order a pizza from New York no more than a potential laser machining customer in Houston wants to pay extra shipping charges for several trucks loads of tubing to be shipped to New York, laser machined and and returned, when it can be done at their back door.

Geographically specific SERP demands are common and well worth the extra effort for many Sites.

Until of course you fall prey to "flower delivery" and "web development" Sites and the "likes" that have used Geographical Spam location services and listed for every city in a country.

Wilted Roses......

Your wife or girlfriend would put the hurt on you!

Ken

[pemburung]

I'd add a definition of the result - the page that surfaces due to spamming techniques - as spam. That's what the consumer sees; the rest is about what a few cognescenti do. The vast majority of SE users have little or no awareness of SEO - white, black or New Orleanean chocolate. But they do know what spam is (when they see it. Funny how the usual end of that line is so closely related.)

So it would be something along the lines of:

SERP Spam: pages on a SERP that are not relevant to the search term, have been manipulated to artificially raise their SERP rank over that which would be achieved normally through content, relevancy, and good design, or serve no useful purpose for a searcher. Also, the use of techniques, legitimate or otherwise, to achieve this.

[SPC2]

No, I'm not assuming, Dave. It's a hypothetical example. We know that IBLs with targeted link text can get a page into the top 10 if there are enough of them, and we know that any page can be got into the top 10 for uncompetitive searchterms almost by just willing it to be there. So let's say that the hypothetical example was for an uncompetitve searchterm

What the methods prevent and hurt, is being able to compare apples to apples. When that happens you're manipulating rankings to suit your own sense of relevance.

Exactly! That's what SEOs and many website owners do. We are not concerned with comparing apples to apples. We don't care if we have an orange to go with the apple and everyone else doesn't. All we are concerned with is getting high rankings for relevant queries for the sites that we deal with.

Don't misunderstand me though. I never suggest spamming unless there really is no other way, and it's very very rare that I use spam methods myself - very rare indeed, even though many people assume me to be a spammer. I think the last time a did any spamming was a couple of years ago, and it was *very* minor stuff.

The point I'm trying to get across is that the spam methods hurt nobody, except the page that gets pushed out of the top 10, but even you don't care about that page, since you approve of doing things to improve the rankings, thus causing other pages to move down the rankings. For instance, hidden text isn't bad for users, cloaking isn't bad for users (if it were bad, the engines wouldn't cloak, but they do), auto-redirects aren't bad for users, etc. etc. The methods themselves are not bad for anyone - not even when they are used to improve rankings.

I don't think we will come to an agreement, Dave, because you want a level playing field - to compare like with like, and SEOs aren't bothered about that. I want my relevant pages to be at the top of the relevant results, and I really don't care if I have an advantage over the competition - in fact, I prefer it.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by SPC2

The point I'm trying to get across is that the spam methods hurt nobody, except the page that gets pushed out of the top 10, but even you don't care about that page, since you approve of doing things to improve the rankings, thus causing other pages to move down the rankings. For instance, hidden text isn't bad for users, cloaking isn't bad for users (if it were bad, the engines wouldn't cloak, but they do), auto-redirects aren't bad for users, etc. etc. The methods themselves are not bad for anyone - not even when they are used to improve rankings.

I don't think we will come to an agreement, Dave, because you want a level playing field - to compare like with like, and SEOs aren't bothered about that. I want my relevant pages to be at the top of the relevant results, and I really don't care if I have an advantage over the competition - in fact, I prefer it.

To the extent that I don't care about the site that gets pushed out of the top 10, business is business, but the reason they get pushed out does make a difference to me.

It's more of risk tolerance than it is an advantage. What is it a person is willing to risk to achieve particular rankings. Possible penalty? Site being banned? Burn a domain and start over, and over again? This is not to discount knowlege and ability.

If there's going to be punishable offenses, punish them, swiftly. As was pointed out in another thread, before a site gets pushed out of the top 10. If not, don't have any offenses. No rules. Removal of risks. Makes for an entirely different ballgame. Removes the advantages. Again, not to discount knowledge and ability.

No, I don't suppose we'll come to a complete agreement. Not neccessarily a bad thing though. Wouldn't want the roof to come down now would we?

Dave