Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Submitting spam reports to Google - no action

  • Subject: Re: Submitting spam reports to Google - no action
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:08:25 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <1141061147.031161.166530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <dtveb2$fvk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ tangerois1 ] on Monday 27 February 2006 17:25 \__

> > I know of a specific circumstance regarding spamming sites with similar
> > domain names, all mirror sites, and after half a dozen spam reports to
> > Google over the past year, they have failed to take action. ...

I hope that these half a dozen were at least a case of re-using the original.
Don't let spam devour your time and patience. It would only bother you more.

> > ... The very
> > fact that the name of the site is misleading, as it was legally
> > dissolved in 2003, seems to make no difference to Google. And recently
> > I have found that Google Norway and Google China search results show
> > one of the spamming sites twice makes me wonder if Google personnel
> > really take this seriously. ...

Their problem is that sites like that are detrimental and they rise off the
ground like worms, time and time again. There are grey are too, so it is not
a matter of just reading your complaint and pulling the knob.

> > ... I don't want some Google engineer to
> > "tweek" their algorithms in this case. It would be far better to remove
> > the offending domains altogether, ....

That's just how they handle sites that offend. They remove them from the
indices altogether and immediately so too. Penalties appear to be handled by
the algorithm and cannot be tinkered with. 'site:<WEB_SITE>' produces no
results if a site is blacklisted.

> > ... since the individuals who run these
> > sites clearly violate all of Google's rules in its webmaster
> > guidelines. Has anyone had any similar problems with Google ignoring
> > their spam reports?

Yes, but carry on sending reports. If no action is taken, schedule that
E-mail despatch as a repetitive job and remember to disable it once the site
(or sites) is toppled. *smile

__/ [ Andrew Heenan ] on Monday 27 February 2006 17:53 \__

[Re: Google ignoring their spam reports]

> Often the way.
> As you know, most spam reports do not result in a manual removal, and it
> would be impossible for Google to do that; they'd be bankrupt in a week if
> they acted on every single spam report.

The best they can do is pick a selected number of victims and ban them. The
word then spreads (ear-to-month and media) and creates a temporary scare,
which urges Webmaster to clean up their act (most latterly JS redirects).

In turn, less users will attempt to spam. This should at least work in
theory, on paper. Google must take street-smarts more seriously.

> We do know that many reported items do assist in algo tweaks, which
> eventually result in the sites demotion or removal.
> Lately, Google has put many more resources into spam, and has started
> 'outing' big name spammers, to encourage the rest, so theier priorities are
> visibly kept under review. Tragedy is that the spammer harming your site is
> not necessarily a big league spammer, and therefore not manually deleted.
> Your suggestion that Google is 'ignoring' them is not provable, and there's
> plenty of evidence that Google takes spam reports seriously, indeed,
> welcomes them.
> See Matt Cutts blog: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/

I was going to suggest the exact same thing. Many people report spam through
comments in his blog. He seems to be among the decision makers.

> But I do agree with you that they can and should do more - but they are
> heading in the right direction.

It's a tradeoff. Let spam live and face the consequences:

 * poor SEPP's
 * dissatisfied honest Webmasters

Kill spam:

 * lead to controversy over decisions, esp. in grey areas
 * be excruciated for censorship of information and definition of "proper
information and improper information"
 * 'shrink' (or prevent and discourage growth of) the Web
 * be portrayed as an evil God



Roy S. Schestowitz 
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  6:55pm  up  15:06,  11 users,  load average: 0.19, 0.38, 0.41
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index