PDA

View Full Version : Google penalizing forums for spam



Paper Shredder Clay
12-02-2009, 04:31 PM
Its not new but today I was reading how Google is penalizing forums with excessive spam. You can read more about it at:

Buy ****** At NME.com - Google Nukes NME Forum Boards | Hobo (http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/index.php/buying-******/)
Mashable & Daily Telegraph UGC Spam May Invite Trouble Too | Hobo (http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/index.php/more-spam/)

You may differ from my opinion, but I think it is good that Google is penalizing such forums. If the forum cannot monitor what is being posted then it should not be registering high or even at all on the Google search.

vangogh
12-02-2009, 06:55 PM
I had already read those posts, but they do make for good conversation.

I'm on both sides of this. It is good for forums and blogs and any other site that uses UGC to police itself. You can probably tell being here that we police this place a lot. I'd be willing to bet this is one of the most spam free forums you'll find online.

However it's also a somewhat impossible task for a few reasons. The more popular your site the more comments/posts you're going to get and it really is impossible to catch everything. Also why should Google get to determine what is and isn't spam? There are plenty of spam comments and posts that are done so well that they're very hard to determine if they really are spam.

We do a good job here of cleaning up spam and banning spammers, but I can tell you there are still some posts and members here that I'm pretty sure are spam. I just could never find anything to prove to me they were so for the time being they've stayed. I can also tell you that many members here have been fooled by spam posts. It's not uncommon for me to delete a post that I know is spam that already has a few replies from others. It's not always easy to tell what is and isn't spam, especially as spam is defined by the eye of the beholder.

Should this forum be punished because someone created a spam post that was very hard to tell was really spam?

In all honestly Google is never going to be able to punish sites for spam comments and posts, because I doubt they can really tell the difference in all cases either. Plus they'd be examining things a different way. Site owners will be making the determination based on what they can read and Google will be making the determination algorithmically. The two methods will lead to different results. I guarantee I can determine certain things are spam that Google will never be able to tell and I guarantee they can determine some things are spam that I can never tell.

And again I don't like the idea that Google somehow gets to decide what is and isn't spam on the web. If they're really interested in fighting spam they should look at their own AdSense program and get rid of all the splogs and spamsense sites. Google makes a good deal of money from spam on the web and it's hypocritical of them to tell everyone else not to allow spam on their sites. It's one thing to punish the actual spammer and another to punish someone because they were fooled by spam or wanted to err on the side of not banning an innocent person.

My message to Google would be physician heal thyself, before trying to heal everyone else.

billbenson
12-02-2009, 10:28 PM
Out of curiosity VG, how much of the spam that you delete is flagged by members and how much do you find on your own first?

vangogh
12-02-2009, 11:02 PM
Most of the spammers never get a chance to post. I usually ban them before they do. I probably catch about 95% before anyone else even knows they're here.

Some spam does get in of course and it generally gets flagged right away. We have a few members, including yourself, who are very good at sniffing out spam posts. It's much appreciated.

Steve B
12-03-2009, 03:11 AM
I can tell you I catch a few because I'm awake at such weird hours. I kind of pride myself on beating VG to a few of them. But, it's also very rare that I catch one. Maybe a few per month.

vangogh
12-03-2009, 03:35 AM
Steve you're definitely one those who does catch and report spammers. You might be the one person who's awake when I'm asleep. :)

Steve B
12-03-2009, 04:03 AM
Steve - I hope you're still up. I've been sending you e-mails and they are all getting bounced. I've tried 3 times - doing different things. I started by hitting "reply" so I couldn't have made a typo. E-mails I've sent to others are getting through.

I'll send you a PM if I get a chance.

vangogh
12-03-2009, 11:33 AM
I did get the PM's. Not sure why the mail didn't get through, though.

rezzy
12-03-2009, 11:48 AM
I cant report what I never see. :(

KristineS
12-03-2009, 05:40 PM
I'm with you Vangogh, I don't think it should be Google's right to determine what is and isn't spam and penalize forums based on their determination. I know I've debated over a post or two that just skated the edge and about which I wasn't sure. I'm not the Spam Assassin that you are, so I've probably erred on the side of caution a time or two. If we can't tell, how can Google.

This forum is one of the best I've seen for eradicating and combating spam. There is very little that actually makes it on to the open forum.

Guess that's a sign that the people (or person, Hi Vangogh) who run this forum really care about the usefulness of the forum.

vangogh
12-03-2009, 06:01 PM
I've gotten pretty good at recognizing spam over the years. I've been moderating and admining forums for about 4 years now and have learned a lot of tricks about how the spammers operate. The webmaster forum I admin gets much more spam than this so I've had a lot of examples to draw from.

One thing about spam is it's truly in the eye of the beholder in many cases. There's a lot we let in on the webmaster forum that I ban here. It depends on the definition of spam. Here I decided that anything that isn't making an attempt to contribute to the forum is spam. So the person who drops in and leaves a few short posts just to get a signature link finds those posts deleted. If they do it often enough their account is banned.

20% of the webmaster forum is probably made up of those kind of posts. Technically they aren't spam. Those posts are useless posts that add a lot of noise to the forum. Are they spam? Look around the web at other forums and you'll see those posts exist everywhere. Is it fair for Google to make that decision?

Also where the webmaster forum is concerned we have a dozen moderators checking in through all hours of the day and spam still gets through. There might be 25 active threads here on a busy day. Over there it could be upwards of 200 threads. It's easy to miss some of those threads. Should that forum be penalized because a group of volunteers don't have the time to police it non-stop.

Google should penalize the spammers, not the victims of spam. Having said that I can understand how they wouldn't want to rank a forum that's filled with little other than spam. There are forums where every other post is spam. Look at the old SBF at this point. Should that forum honestly be ranking. Is it useful to anyone anymore?

I think Google is going to have to walk a fine line here and err on the side of caution. Unfortunately that's never been their M.O.

TmasterMind
12-16-2009, 11:19 PM
Forums are said to be one of the easiest areas or environments which traffic can be generated that is why spams are basically faced by our admin and moderators yet, Google, with that instance is still not getting it all assured that they are really determining all the spam aspects.

I should second on how this forum is managed too though because business forums have been always challenged with spam but in this place, good thing that all are easily policed even though some of the forum replies are not easily determined if it's the kind of spammy helpful or just a spam.

vangogh
12-17-2009, 11:27 AM
There's so much automated software out there for spamming forums and especially as a forum grows it's hard for the staff to see every post. Additionally there are many people who don't post through automation, but leave useless comments just for the signature link. That second type of comment usually ends up staying on most forums, though I generally delete them all here.

It can be difficult to tell and I want to err on the side of caution, but at the same time if a post doesn't further the conversation in some way it will likely be deleted.

Spider
12-17-2009, 11:44 AM
Oh! So, my occasional little quips are likely to be deleted?

Hummph!

vangogh
12-17-2009, 12:01 PM
Frederick: Post count = 0 :)

I do make a distinction between people who contribute most of the time and then leave a short quick post and those that only leave the short quick post. Besides a short quick post can still add something to the conversation.

cbscreative
12-17-2009, 03:24 PM
Looks like I missed this conversation the first time around, but now that it's been bumped, I'm glad to join in.

I have to agree on balance. There's the issue that Google should punish the spammer and not the spammed, which is generally a good policy. I was wondering if someone would bring up the old SBF, which vangogh did, because this is clearly an example where spam has been allowed to run rampant. Should such a site be ranked well? I think the answer should be no.

Then, there's also a point which vangogh has not made yet (in this thread anyway), that we won't reveal too much detail about how we spot spammers, especially the ones that get banned before they even post. It's not that the spammers would actually read the posts here, they're generally very lazy and wouldn't. But you never know when someone might. If that happens, it could end up on some "under the rock" meeting spot where these scum assemble to discuss their evil deeds.

We certainly would not want to educate them. Most are too stupid and lazy to be educated much, but they are capable of devising new "tricks" to try and cicumvent our defense methods. They apparently have the abilty to share information in the same way that rats know to run when the sewer is about to flood.

In a future post, I may take the opportunity to use illustrations that demonstrate my true feelings about spammers.

nealrm
12-17-2009, 03:54 PM
Steve, I wish we could say that all spammer are "too stupid and lazy to be educated much". Then blocking the spam would be easier. However, the sophistication of the spam bot leads me to think there is a core group that is educated and willing to work. It's too bad they don't have the moral background to put there efforts to good use.

As for Google penalizing forums for spam, I can see their point. I have seen many forums that are completely uncontrolled. Anything and everything is allowed. Should Google treat those forums as being equivalent to SBF?

billbenson
12-17-2009, 04:16 PM
I've seen forums with sections for spammy posts that may have value to the forum members. Say a drive by poster wants a one post on his specialized legal services. That could be placed in the spam section by the poster or by a mod. Spam posts of no value are deleted.

I wonder how this would affect that strategy?

vangogh
12-17-2009, 09:41 PM
However, the sophistication of the spam bot leads me to think there is a core group that is educated and willing to work.

True. It's a mix of people. Some are very smart and develop the software. Another set is also pretty smart and learns how to use the software well. Then there are those who are just lazy and make it very obvious that they're spamming.

Not all spam is automated either. Some of it is just useless posts that are manually created. My feeling is they don't contribute anything and ultimately serve to water down the quality we have so they get deleted.


Say a drive by poster wants a one post on his specialized legal services.

If all someone wants to do is a drive by to drop a link I don't think they add value. Some people might be interested in their services, but I think it's using the forum solely for promotion. How would you feel if that same person pitched their offer and link in an email instead of a forum post.

It's not that we're against marketing or marketing here. I just think people should be required to participate and contribute some before taking something back in the form or marketing themselves.

On the webmaster forum where I post we have those spam sections where people can drop link requests and similar. The whole section quickly gets overrun with garbage to the point where no one wants to moderate it any more. Ultimately it waters down everything else and sets the bar lower for moderating the rest of the forum.

The goal here is to build a quality resource for us and anyone outside reading. It's also a way for each of us to connect with each other and build genuine relationships, both business and personal.

Spider
12-17-2009, 11:16 PM
Whatever you guys do, it is having a good result, and I thank you for your efforts. You have made SBF.net a fabulous group. I appreciate everybody who contributes.

vangogh
12-18-2009, 12:32 AM
Thanks Frederick. It's not just us though. It's everybody here participating. We may not always agree with each other, but we do have some great conversations. I think most of us have had our minds changed about something at times, which is somewhat unusual. And think about how much we've learned from each other.

I realize most people lurk at forums instead of becoming members and posting and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm sure there have been many people who have read here and learned something from what we've said. What I think they miss out on though is being an active participant in the debate. Having to go back and forth with each other strengthens us in so many ways. We become better at thinking critically and logically and we become better writers. Given how important content is to the success of any website and how important words are to any business we gain so much more by participating.

I remember admining the old forum and also still admining a webmaster forum. At those places I didn't really get to make the call about certain posts, but you could see how they dragged the whole place down. There are some threads on the webmaster forum that go on for pages and absolutely nothing is ever said. It always seemed to me like getting rid of those posts would only benefit the forum. Here we get to do that.

cbscreative
12-18-2009, 05:39 PM
Steve, I wish we could say that all spammer are "too stupid and lazy to be educated much". Then blocking the spam would be easier. However, the sophistication of the spam bot leads me to think there is a core group that is educated and willing to work. It's too bad they don't have the moral background to put there efforts to good use.

As for Google penalizing forums for spam, I can see their point. I have seen many forums that are completely uncontrolled. Anything and everything is allowed. Should Google treat those forums as being equivalent to SBF?

I wish I could say "all" too. I believe most are very lazy, and probably a good majority are not very smart. But there are the cunning ones, and like you said, they waste their potential on being devious. If they put that to good use, they would probably be surprised at what they could accomplish. So in a way, they have a form of stupidity too since they are blinded by greed and chase an elusive satisfaction devising one scheme after another.

As for the question in your second paragraph, no, I don't believe that an uncontolled forum should be treated as well as the SBF, or any other well run forum. But I question that any algorithm can really determine the difference. There's probably a balance somewhere that will improve the way forums get ranked, but it will most likely be far from perfect. I do hope that Google shows restraint and focuses more on the spammer than the spammed, and I also hope they carefully weigh the consequences of their decisions before implementing them.

cbscreative
12-18-2009, 05:49 PM
And to comment on what vangogh said, he has been a pleasure to work with. I respect his position on controlling the quality of the forum while allowing members to express their views openly. From the beginning, we sought to have exactly what we do have here. It is the result of great members, and the fact that we sometimes make decisions about who is here only to gain sig links or toot their own horn without making any useful contributions.

I agree with vg about about not allowing the forum to be dragged down, and that does sometimes involve making the call on signal to noise ratio. This process does involve methods we are better off not to reveal on the open forum, but I think we have the best community here because we made a commitment from the start that this forum would be moderated by people who care. And since we have members who care too, that's a big plus.

Spider
12-18-2009, 09:52 PM
I think we (you) have the right approach for the right reasons. What worries me just a little is that this is another example of "the world according to Google." Google gets to say what is acceptable and what is not, and because so many people have to make commerical decisions about their websites based on how they think Google operates, that gives Google way too much power.

vangogh
12-19-2009, 02:45 AM
What worries me just a little is that this is another example of "the world according to Google."

Agreed. Google is a business. They do a good job of providing search results. There's lots I don't like about those results, but they still seem better than the other general search engines.

The problem is when they think they can dictate the web and tell us how to run our sites.

I don't think they're an evil company. I think they're a business that answers to the bottom line. I don't believe they have bad intentions, but I do think they sometimes think they're more important than they really are.

nealrm
12-19-2009, 10:48 AM
True - Google's business decision do effect how many webmaster run their sites. However, is it really Google dictating the web? Google is just improving their search engine to provide the results that people want to see. If they didn't like those results, they would switch to another search engine that provide better results. So in effect Google is just telling us what the general public wants.

vangogh
12-20-2009, 12:58 AM
I don't necessarily think Google is dictating the web, but at times they try to. They've certainly done a good job in building a search engine and providing relevant results and because of that they've become one of the biggest starting points anytime someone goes online. Many websites rely on Google traffic for their business.

Now, no one has an inalienable right to Google traffic, but clearly Google has a lot of influence with the people who build websites. If tomorrow Google decided that blue sites would rank better than red sites, I can guarantee you'd see a lot less red online and a lot more blue.

Google knows this and I think at times they try to influence how web developers and site owners do things so it benefits Google. For example Google has come down hard on buying links. But a link is essentially an ad. People bought them before Google and people will buy them after Google. Google though has decided if you buy or sell a link they're going to slap you by sending less traffic to you.

They've been known at times to hand edit results, meaning instead of a site's pages ranking according to the algorithm Google ranks it lower for whatever reason. They show favoritism toward big branded sites and have shown that to catch one spammer they'll let hundreds of mom and pops lose traffic and business.

Don't get me wrong. Google is still my search engine of choice and I like a lot of things they do. However they are far from doing no evil and have been developing an arrogance over the years that the world should let them do whatever they want.

nealrm
12-20-2009, 09:55 AM
Vangogh, I see what you are saying. I'm not sure about the arrogance part so.

I am going to clarify your statement on buying & selling links.

Google has come down hard on buying links. But a link is essentially an ad. People bought them before Google and people will buy them after Google. Google though has decided if you buy or sell a link they're going to slap you by sending less traffic to you.
You still can buy and sell ad/links freely, just not those that effect search engine results. I sell ads all the time, I just make sure to let the spiders knows that they are advertisements and should not be used for determine SEPR. For those websites that try to play the system, Google's response is logical. They just don't include those pages in their SEPR calculations.

vangogh
12-21-2009, 12:58 AM
I sell ads all the time, I just make sure to let the spiders knows that they are advertisements and should not be used for determine SEPR.

My point is you shouldn't have to worry about telling Google the links are ads. If Google doesn't want to count those links when determining what ranks where they have every right. It's up to Google to determine which links have been bought/sold and not give any weight to those links.

Google doesn't do that though. They tell site owners that if they don't disclose to Google which links have been bought and sold your site can be penalized. Isn't that dictating to site owners what a site owner should do?

Do you disclose which links you've sold because you want to or because you don't want to displease Google? Google is dictating to you how you should run your site. I realize it's not a hardship to do what you're doing, but you're doing it because they told you to.

Business Attorney
12-21-2009, 10:17 AM
I have to agree with nealrm on this one. We all know that Google values incoming natural links heavily in determining how a site ranks. We also know that many websites attempt to game the system by buying links that appear as editorial matter.

A website owner who is willing to sell links without identifying that they are not natural links (by including the nofollow tag) is undermining the value of a Google search. If Google doesn't penalize those website owners, they have nothing to lose by undermining the search engine results for a little economic gain.

Not only do I recognize the right of Google as a business to determine what is best for their business, as a user of search engines I am tired of sifting through low-quality websites at or near the top of some searches. I applaud Google's efforts to identify and penalize those websites who help promote that junk for a few extra bucks in their pockets.

If someone wants to sell links, let them do so, but also let them know that if they get caught there will be a potential cost to them.

vangogh
12-21-2009, 10:57 AM
A website owner who is willing to sell links without identifying that they are not natural links (by including the nofollow tag) is undermining the value of a Google search.

That's Google's problem not a website owners problem. People have been buying and selling links since before Google existed. It's simply called advertising. It's not your or my responsibility to do things based on what adds to Google's value. That's Google's job. So again you're now making decisions about your website based on what's better for Google's bottom line.

Google says buying links is bad yet it seems to me like half their results page is filled with links that have paid to be there. What Google is saying is it's ok for them to sell links, but we don't want you selling them. They are dictating how other sites should be run.


as a user of search engines I am tired of sifting through low-quality websites at or near the top of some searches. I applaud Google's efforts to identify and penalize those websites who help promote that junk for a few extra bucks in their pockets.

The junk sites know how to get away with buying and selling links without getting caught. In fact all of this talk from Google is because they don't have any way to determine with certainty which links are bought and sold. If you called me on the phone and asked me to write a post that linked back to your site in exchange for a cash payment, Google could never find out unless we told them.

Since Google can't really detect that kind of thing they put out scare tactics in the hopes that people will be too afraid to buy or sell links. Their results aren't going to improve over this. If Google wants to improve results they can start by eliminating all the spamsense sites. They don't because they happen to make a lot of money from those sites.

nealrm
12-21-2009, 01:06 PM
That's Google's problem not a website owners problem. People have been buying and selling links since before Google existed. It's simply called advertising. It's not your or my responsibility to do things based on what adds to Google's value. That's Google's job. So again you're now making decisions about your website based on what's better for Google's bottom line.


Google provides the webmasters with free advertising for thier websites. They also provide instructons on how to get the best use of that advertising. Nothing Google is doing is forcing webmasters to follow those instructions or to accept their advertising. However, that does not mean it does not make good business sense to do so.


Google says buying links is bad yet it seems to me like half their results page is filled with links that have paid to be there. What Google is saying is it's ok for them to sell links, but we don't want you selling them.
This is incorrect. Per Googles guildlines on buying and selling links "Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results." So Google selling advertising is not a contridiction for their policies.

In general Google tells webmasters that "we will provide you with free advertising but you need to work with us".

vangogh
12-21-2009, 04:20 PM
Google provides the webmasters with free advertising for thier websites. They also provide instructons on how to get the best use of that advertising

Agreed. I certainly take advantage of many of those instructions myself. And I agree Google isn't forcing me to do what they say. The choice is mine whether or not I want their traffic and if I do I need to understand their rules.

However Google puts out a lot of misinformation. Some of what they tell you to do in their guidelines is not how to help your pages rank better, but rather how to help Google's bottom line.

Also as Google has grown in size their traffic has become more important to most sites. They deserve credit for growing as they have, but they do use their power to dictate to others what they should do. There's a difference between saying we suggest you do this if you want more Google traffic and you better not do this or we're going to take away your Google traffic.


Per Googles guildlines on buying and selling links "Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results."

Then why is it that Google has penalized sites for selling advertising? Why do they make the assumption that when you or I sells a link for advertising it was done to manipulate search results.

By the way Google consistently manipulates search results when it suits their purpose. They rank Google owned properties above competing sites all the time. It's certainly their right to do so, but let's not pretend when you see a page of 10 search results you're seeing the 10 most relevant pages. Didn't those top 3 results that are ads pay to manipulate search results? Many people think those ads are organic listings.


In general Google tells webmasters that "we will provide you with free advertising but you need to work with us".

Have you ever noticed more and more of Google's "improvements" are designed so people don't ever need to leave Google to visit the page on the other end of the link? More and more they work at keeping people away from your site and on Google's site.

By the way I'm not suggesting Google is an evil company here. Google is my search engine of choice and I really like many of the things they do. I'm partly playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion and partly trying to point out that while they aren't evil they stopped being about "do no evil" a long time ago.

Google is a business and answers to its shareholders. They could care less about your business unless your business happens to help their business. They do use their size and power in the marketplace to dictate what other sites should do, the same way any business uses their power and influence to increase their bottom line.