when is a page "spam"

[I, Brian]

I love the issue of ethics, in general, as a dicussion point. And as I'm in this business, SEO ethics is a discussion I really enjoy. :)

A topic I'd like to *focus* on here, though, is as to *when* web pages can be regarded as "spam" - also, whether there are degrees of "spam"?

Are pages filled with affiliate links spam? After all, they can exist simply to promote traffic to other sites, with no interest in providing original content.

How about blogs? Some are great - O 'Reilly has a bundle on their network, and CNet lists to some very distinguished ones. So how come the ones I always seem to come across in Google are so pitiful content-free self-indulgent clap-trap? Are they spam?

Now the crunch - one aspect of SEO/SEM involves the creation of additional sites and pages solely from which to promote clients from. It's part of the general links building armoury.

When is this spam?

Is it spam if the pages contain content that is useful for humans, as well as search engines?

Is it spam if it only ranks high in the SERPs?

At what point does creating pages primarily for search engines *fairly* enter into accusations of said pages being "spam"?

[rustybrick]

I'm personally tired of these types of posts so I'll just link to a definition of spam.

http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#2.1
It's a luncheon meat, kinda pink, comes in a can, made by Hormel. Most Americans intuitively, viscerally associate "Spam" with "no nutritive or aesthetic value," though it is still relatively popular (especially in Hawaii) and can be found in almost any grocery store.) The canned luncheon meat has its own newsgroup, alt.spam.

:)

[sugarrae]

My opinion - there is high risk SEO, medium risk SEO and low risk SEO. Choose your level of comfort and rock on.

[Daria_Goetsch]

How about blogs? Some are great - O 'Reilly has a bundle on their network, and CNet lists to some very distinguished ones.

O'Reilly really focuses on quality information for their users, so their use of blogs is smart and a worthwhile effort for their visitors. If you have something to say and it is quality information, then it makes sense to add content pages.

[Nick W]

My opinion - there is high risk SEO, medium risk SEO and low risk SEO. Choose your level of comfort and rock on.

That needs repeating.

It's all bollocks, if you cant see that it is, well, you go your way.....


Nick

[sugarrae]

"Some are great - O 'Reilly has a bundle on their network, and CNet lists to some very distinguished ones. So how come the ones I always seem to come across in Google are so pitiful content-free self-indulgent clap-trap?"

"If you have something to say and it is quality information"

"Quality" information as a description of content is in the eye of the beholder. I know quite a few bloggers who write what some would consider "useless entry after useless entry" because it isn't about a technical topic, politics of the current news events of the day.

Yet, these bloggers have *huge* followings and lots of traffic. What they write certainly wouldn't be considered "useful" to the O Reilly crowd, but its obvious from their traffic and comments that it certainly interests some people.

The blogging community has it's own dynamic, and it's own standards. Sure, there are useless blogs - you can tell by their lack of traffic and comments - but there are also blogs delivering "drivel" with a huge audience that loves to hear it.

Sorry, went a bit off topic there ;).

[I, Brian]

Point being, O'Reilly blogs have coherent quality subject-rich content, aimed at very specifically at human user - not spam in anyone's books.

Yet if I put up low-ranking content-rich pages, specifically for search engines to pick up the links from them (no cloaking, redirects, doorways, or anything specifically Blackhat, etc, etc) -> then somebody somewhere will cry "spam!" because of the intention of getting SEM benefits from pages designed for SEM benefits - even if the content is actually useful for human users!

And yet those same spam-criers will then argue that the topic-free pubescent drivellous monotonous blog-fest angst I've had the misfortune to encounter via searches on Google - is legitimate "content" - because it was written, duplicated via dynamic page and static HTML archive, and link bombed into irrelevant subject areas by a group of equally snivelling adolescents... ...but all without search engines in mind... ...so that lack of intention makes it all okay non-spam!



What I'm trying to focus a discussion on is whether "intention" versus "content" is a valid argument to make, and the reasoning for the decision.

[rcjordan]

Truth is, one man's spam can be another man's resource site. Remember SNAP? Back then I wrote a large-ish site to, ummm, 'fill in the blanks' at the local level --to me, it was a traffic dredge, plain & simple. Damn was a big hit with JohnQ, has plenty of free, non-reciprocal backlinks now.

[sugarrae]

"What I'm trying to focus a discussion on is whether "intention" versus "content" is a valid argument to make, and the reasoning for the decision."

I don't think it matters. Again, you can go high risk, medium risk or low risk - whatever you can sleep with at night. There is no way to know a person's true intention - only what they claim it to be. Google, nor any other SE is going to personally investigate every site to try a decipher it's intention, so the whole "argument" of content vs. intention seems pointless to have, because intention will never be used as a factor by the mega SE's to "flag" spam. Course, unless you simply like heated discussion ;).

[Nacho]

Here is something I came across today. So you guys be the judge. Is this SPAM or not?

I searched in Google for "aldo luongo (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=aldo+luongo)", which is an artist of a fine limited collection of art.

The very first natural listing is: http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_m.html. Wait, was that the right destination page, oh NO, there is a redirect (see code for "onMouseOver="location.href") that takes you to the homepage.

For those of you who where not able to catch the "_____ page" (whatever you want to call it - again up to you). Here is a copy (http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/mex-grocer/aldo-luongo.html) of it in one of my servers. I removed the redirect so that you can spend as much time on it as you want.

Want to analyze the code, well here it is:

<html><head>
<title>Aldo Luongo Sources at Lahainagalleries.com</title>
<meta NAME="keywords" content="Aldo Luongo, home painting ideas, civil war paintings, 19th century fine art david cox, black art painting on e-bay, sites with fine art paintings">
<meta NAME="description" content="Aldo Luongo sources. ">
<meta name="revisit-after" content="7 days">
<meta name="robots" content="all=index,follow">
<meta name= "resource-type" content="document">
<meta http-equiv="pragma" content="no-cache">
<meta name="distribution" content= "Global">
<meta name="language" content="English">
<meta name="doc-rights" content="Copy Written Work">
<meta name="robots" content="all">
</head><body a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/" onMouseOver="location.href = 'http://www.lahainagalleries.com/';" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#000000" vlink="#000000"><p align="center"><a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/" >
<img src="clickhere.gif" border="0" Alt="aldo luongo - click here to enter, civil war paintings, black art painting on e-bay, 19th century fine art david cox, home painting ideas, sites with fine art paintings" ></a>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvietica, sans-serif"><font size="3"><br>
<br>
<h1 align="center">Aldo Luongo at Lahainagalleries.com</h1>
<br>
<p align="left">Aldo luongo information presented at Lahainagalleries.com. Aldo luongo sources by clicking above. Find <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_n.html">aldo luongo</a> on Lahainagalleries.com. all kinds of artwork and paintings found online at lahaina galleries. Gary Swanson artist and other work found on lahaina galleries.visit us today. looking for art in hawaii? visit us online today or give us a call. Many artist such as Naoko, Darrell Hill, Otsuka. Are all artist with work found on lahaina galleries. Related terms are <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_m.html">sites with fine art paintings</a>, <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_n.html">home painting ideas</a>, <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_o.html">civil war paintings</a>, <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_p.html">19th century fine art david cox</a>, and <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_q.html">black art painting on e-bay</a>. looking for original artwork done by the best original artists? Visit us today. visit us today for the best original artwork today! or give us a call. still on display at Lahaina Galleries. Ironically, Killett even wound up doing business with Hawaii Five-O’s leading man, Jack Lord. official artist for Perrier Jouet champagne; Dario Campanile, who applies the luminous technique of a Salvador Dali. Hong Leung, Aldo Luongo, Naoko, Darrell Hill, Otsuka. Are all artist with work found on lahaina galleries. Aldo luongo sources at Lahainagalleries.com. Frederick Hart, the Vietnam Memorial’s three G.I.’s, the “Creation” panels of the National Cathedral, and the incredible pioneering acrylic sculptures.<br>
</p>
</font><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvietica, sans-serif">Guy Buffet, Dario Campanile, Lau Chun, John Cosby, Gregory Deane, Yankel Ginzburg, Frederick Hart. Aldo luongo related phrases are on Lahainagalleries.com. Hawaii's largest art gallery and most well known galleries in America. The Killetts cultivated a roster of technically dazzling, accomplished artists, including Guy Buffet, whose slyly irresistible portraits of waiters. Related terms include 19th century fine art david cox, civil war paintings, black art painting on e-bay, home painting ideas, and sites with fine art paintings. paintings, art work by original artist found online at lahaina galleries today. looking for great art for your house visit lahaina galleries today and browse around. accomplished artists, including Guy Buffet, whose slyly irresistible portraits of waiters. Look for aldo luongo on Lahainagalleries.com. The Killetts cultivated a roster of technically dazzling, accomplished artists, including Guy Buffet, whose slyly irresistible portraits of waiters. Hawaii's largest art gallery and most well known galleries in America. Terms that are related are home painting ideas, sites with fine art paintings, black art painting on e-bay, civil war paintings, and 19th century fine art david cox. looking for art in hawaii? visit us online today or give us a call.
<br><p><a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_n.html">Aldo luongo</a> is related to Lahainagalleries.com. Frederick Hart, the Vietnam Memorial’s three G.I.’s, the “Creation” panels of the National Cathedral, and the incredible pioneering acrylic sculptures. Hong Leung, Aldo Luongo, Naoko, Darrell Hill, Otsuka. Are all artist with work found on lahaina galleries. Many artist such as Naoko, Darrell Hill, Otsuka. Are all artist with work found on lahaina galleries. still on display at Lahaina Galleries. Ironically, Killett even wound up doing business with Hawaii Five-O’s leading man, Jack Lord. Other related phrases are black art painting on e-bay, civil war paintings, 19th century fine art david cox, home painting ideas, and sites with fine art paintings. looking for original artwork done by the best original artists? Visit us today. looking for great art for your house visit lahaina galleries today and browse around. paintings, art work by original artist found online at lahaina galleries today. official artist for Perrier Jouet champagne; Dario Campanile, who applies the luminous technique of a Salvador Dali.
</font><font size="3"></p>
<center>
<a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/">Homepage</a> <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/john_cosby_q.html">Products</a>
<a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/frederick_hart_q.html">Services</a> <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/frederick_hart_n.html">Help</a>
<a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_o.html">About Us</a> <a href="http://www.lahainagalleries.com/lahainagalleries.com_SiteMap.html">Site
Map</a>
</center>
</font>
<!-- Aldo Luongo, black art painting on e-bay, civil war paintings, sites with fine art paintings,
19th century fine art david cox, and home painting ideas on Lahainagalleries.com. -->
</font>
</body></html>


Now, let's analize the backlinks (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&q=link:http%3A//www.lahainagalleries.com/aldo_luongo_m.html) to this page. Wow, there is ONLY 1: http://www.laramoremagic.com/laramoremagic.com_friends.html

I don't know about you, but IMO this page does not look useful to ANY user. However, the question remains: Is this SPAM?

Let's go back to the beginning. When we did the search for "aldo luongo (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=aldo+luongo)" the first result with lahainagalleries.com actually does take us to one text link and with one image link to http://www.aldoluongo.com/ , which is the actual and offical artist's homepage. So why did lahainagalleries.com go through all the trouble to get traffic for "Aldo Luongo" if it doesn't sell any of its art? Short answer, to convert that traffic into buyers of art for other artist that lahainagalleries.com does carry.

Now, we have the big picture, now we can ask: IS THIS SPAM?

You call the shots.

[mcanerin]

Question of spam aside, as a general rule any page that makes me want to claw out by eyes when I attempt to read it (like that one - my head hurts) should probably not be presented to me as a "good" result by a search engine, and I personally would consider it to be spam based on that...

However, the fact that maybe I personally don't like something should not automatically mean something is spam. It might be spam to me, but it might be your lifes work (pathetic as it is) to you.

One issue with spam is that its usual online meaning is "unsolicited, bulk, commercial email" And it has to be ALL three to fit. It can legally be commercial and unsolicited (ie a link request or request for services), or bulk and commercial (ie a newsletter) and still be fine.

For reasons known only to the originators, spam later got connected to some websites, possibly because the usual reaction to a list in Google that looks like a list in an inbox before filtering reminded them of it...

I really like the definition of spam being "Sites Positioned Above Mine" from a humor standpoint, but unfortunately that's not helpful.

The problem with "spam" is that it's very much a judgement call. I think it is possible to be "spammy" without being spam.

For example, a webmaster with a top ranked site who stuffs metatags and comment tags is obviously spammy, but since the engines ranked the site where it is while ignoring the comments and metatags, is it spam? It's there naturally IN SPITE of the stuffing.

So in this case the page is spam but relevant? Is a technique only spam when it's influential?

That might be it - unless it works, it's not spam - just stupid web tricks....

In that case, maybe like email spam, in order for something to be search engine spam it has to not only fit ONE category, but more than one AT THE SAME TIME to truly qualify as spam.

Anyone have ideas on what the criteria would be.

I think most people would consider deceptive to be one of them. When I do a search on (to use an actual example that happened to me in the old days) "disney kids games" and get back 3 pages of porn sites on Alta Vista I would consider those results to be spam, and the webmasters who deliberately attempted to show up for that result to be spammers (and morons - did they think I'd be interested? I doubt there was much of a conversion rate)

Issues with this are that many sites today that people may consider "spam" are actually on-target. They are about the topic searched for. So deception isn't all of it. Or at least has to be defined better.

Also, I think that it should be effective. If you do something with the intent to trick me but it doesn't work, then you are an idiot, but NOT a trickster, I would think.

So it has to be deceptive and effective. Anything else?

Ian

[Jill Whalen]

My friend Alan Perkins defines it as follows:

Search Engine Spam
Any attempt to deceive a search engine's relevancy algorithm




[From "The Classification of Spam (http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/)]

[I, Brian]

My friend Alan Perkins defines it as follows:

Search Engine Spam
Any attempt to deceive a search engine's relevancy algorithm

[From "The Classification of Spam (http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/)]
That's the problem, though - gauging intention.

After all, the administrators of highrankings - and that includes Alan Perkins - all have an unobtrusive links to their commerce sites at the foot of every page on that forum.

There are obvious SEO benefits to doing so - in fact, Alan's article above even seems to label it "Link Content Spam":


When a link exists on a page A to page B only to affect the ... authority component of page B
Of course, the contention is one of "intention".

Would Alan therefore be happy to use an external JavaScript file to ensure the highrankings footer links are delivered as effectively invisible to Google and other search engines? That would certainly prove that the placement of those links has everything to do with human users only, and nothing to do with search engines - but I somehow doubt that will happen.

Namely because every SEO at some point has to take search engines into account when it comes to constructing site pages - whether body copy or link strategy in itself.

Search Engines themselves would probably call that an intention to "spam". SEM's would possibly call it "improving accessibility".

[I, Brian]

Nacho,

What you appear to have listed is a "doorway page" - which isn't really a "grey area" on the issue of "intention". :)

[Nick W]

Search Engine Spam
Any attempt to deceive a search engine's relevancy algorithm

This is the problem with self appointed "authority", it can backfire.

Under that definition, almost all SEO can be classified as spam. At the very least, alll SEO is highly questionable.

Take highrankings.com for example. Is it spam? Sure it is, under that definition. It could be argued that the domain name was chosen to encourage people to use the anchor text "high rankings".....

Note: I dont think that's spammy, I think it makes perfect sense, the point isnt to accuse, but rather point out that definitions like that are far to open to interpretation.

Its all a matter of perspective, and perceived intent.

Nick

[searchengineblog.com]

Spam is in the eye of the beholder.

[NFFC]

> When a link exists on a page A to page B only to affect the ... authority component of page B

Would that also cover the link Mr Perkins recently added at the foot of his "spam white paper"?

[Jill Whalen]

Would Alan therefore be happy to use an external JavaScript file to ensure the highrankings footer links are delivered as effectively invisible to Google and other search engines? That would certainly prove that the placement of those links has everything to do with human users only, and nothing to do with search engines - but I somehow doubt that will happen.

Of course he would be happy to do so, but why should he (or we since he actually had nothing to do with that link) since it's not there to deceive nor to gain link popularity. We don't use javascript links on our site -- you're saying we should start to so that people like you stop accusing us of spamming? I think not. Accuse all you want.

Jill

[Jill Whalen]

Regarding the name high rankings -- if my intention was to get people to use the phrase high rankings so that I could rank highly for that it, then I would be a complete idiot since "high rankings" as a keyword phrase is not a good one at all. (I know many of you think I AM a complete idiot, but c'mon, I'm not THAT dumb ;) )

It's a useless phrase other than for the branding that I have created over the years with it.

I don't remember ever actually buying a domain name for keyword purposes. (Although I have had clients that have come to me already having keyword-rich domains.) Not that I think there's anything wrong with it, I just don't do it, nor do I recommend it to my clients. There are too many more important reasons to name a domain a certain way (nothing to do with SEO), and keywords is way way way down on my particular list of them.

But aside from all that, no, I don't believe it's spam either.

BTW, I only pulled that one definition out of Alan's paper regarding spam because this thread was asking for definitions. He does address the other issues you guys bring up, and very well, I might add. Have a quick read some time! I'm not about to try to go into the details and defend his paper, because I could never do it justice, and it's probably been done in millions of forums across the world before. (Alan's on vacation for a few weeks...erm I mean "holiday" so you won't be seeing him here either.)

I'm pretty much going to leave it at this because I don't want to get into this debate -- again! (I'm getting to old, I think. :o )

Jill

[I, Brian]

Of course he would be happy to do so, but why should he (or we since he actually had nothing to do with that link) since it's not there to deceive nor to gain link popularity. We don't use javascript links on our site -- you're saying we should start to so that people like you stop accusing us of spamming? I think not. Accuse all you want.

Jill
Jill,

No one is accusing anyone of spamming - except, apparently, Alan Perkins. Who, by his own definitions, could arguably be construed as falling upon his own sword.

You recommended someone as an authority as what is "spam" and what is not - my point was merely that the issue is not so clear cut - that was the intention of opening a discussion on this "grey" area of SEO.

[Nick W]

>>then I would be a complete idiot

Yes, you would. You see my point right though jill? It's all in interpretation.

>>Perky

Ya know? Im fed up with this guy, i've not met him but he irritates the hell out of me already. Who the hell appointed him the white knight of Search?

I just dont buy that crap. Great marketing, far more eloquently done than some voiciferous 'white knights' i've debated (a generous term in the circumstances) with recently, but, still just marketing spin.

Dont take rocket science to see motives....

The SE's love this kind of ridiculous justification of actions, and they love this debate. I salute and applaud them, it's (and no Y! i dont mean you) a masterful effort to combat (read, keep off-balance) an issue they have little hope of ever solving under the current way of thinking.

Nick

[ihelpyou]

Ya know? Im fed up with this guy, i've not met him but he irritates the hell out of me already. Who the hell appointed him the white knight of Search?
I know you don't want to hear this, but "perky" as you call him can and does run circles around every single member in here when it comes to technical knowledge as well as SEO knowledge.

Jealousy is a powerful thing. The fact that Google also points to and endorses "perky's" white paper on spam says something in and of itself. No posts putting down Alan Perkins will help dilute that fact.

[mcanerin]

when it comes to technical knowledge as well as SEO knowledge

I agree. Although Alan and I occasionally disagree, he's one of the sharpest people I know. As for being a "white knight", he's one of the ones that appears to have come to his conclusions based on careful thought rather than just quoting others or following along behind the pack.

Although that doesn't always mean he's right, I would make very certain of your facts before entering a debate with him. Do your research, or stick totally with unsupported, opinion-only stuff. Otherwise you just end up looking silly.

And yes Alan, I STILL disagree with you on that Flash issue.... :P

Feel free to disagree with his definition of spam, but like it or not it's one of the most authoritive and widely quoted definitions available, so if you disagree it would be best to show good reason, rather than assume everyone else is as casually dismissive.

I still think someone may be able to come up with a better one, but for now I'll admit it's the best one currently available, in my opinion.

Ian

[WilliamC]

My friend Alan Perkins defines it as follows:

Search Engine Spam
Any attempt to deceive a search engine's relevancy algorithm




[From "The Classification of Spam (http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/)]

Perfect example Jill. This says that every single page that any SEO/SEM has touched is spam.

Edit: BTW, I dont really think this, but you see what I mean. Alans definition is way too broad nowadays.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

With all respect, I don't think Allan Perkins old definition of what spam is, is very relevant today. It never got much back-up in the first place and is most certainly not very accurate today. I think the closest thing to the truth that has been said in general terms about what spam is, is what Danny said some time ago - something like: "Spam is whatever the search engines determine they do not want in thei index, or do not want to rank along other pages" - and, the search engines do not even have to disclose what algorithmic or editorial rules they apply.

Having said that, I think there are examples most of us can agree is spam - including the engines. No matter what technique or redirects is used I think we can all agree that a top ranked URL that dosen't lead to what it said it would is spam if done on purpose by exploiding search engines.

The differences in opinion starts on weather the use of specific techniques alone can be spam, or if spam actually has to produce some damage to search user experience. I believe mostly in the last: Basically, a page is not spam if it dosen't rank for anything. It may be a "spammy" page because of the intend of it, but if noone can find it I don't think it actually spam anyone. Spam is all the bad stuff we find in search results - not all the bad stuff we never see because it is ranked so low its virtualy invisible.


The page in question is tricky because it does use "spammy" techniques (as defined by: techniques often used by spammers), and it does rank for something but as far as I hear (I don't know any spanish, so I can't really check this one out) the link in the search results actually does take you to what it said it would, right? Or did I get that wrong?

Anyway, let's say the link does take you to exactly what you where looking for, and what you expected from reading the title and description (snippet). In that case you are probably happy - and if you are, so are the engine. Even if some people would determine this as spam I don't think any engine would ever do anything about it. If there is no victim there is no crime. If it aint broke, why fix it? It just dosen't make sense for a search engine to use valuable resurses removing spammy pages that dosen't spam anyone.

If, on the other hand, the link does not lead to what you where looking for and/or what you expected from reading the title and description then I would say it is spam. And, actually one of the worst kinds. Because, if these people knew how to "place" that page, using these kind of techniques, at the top then they should know better - if they are "pro's" they should know not to fool with the users. There is simply no point (long or short term) in tricking the users and giving them bad click through experiences. We should all want users to be happy using searh engines. In a case like this I think the engines shoot boot the site fast. In fact, I am very sorry that they do not always do this fast enough.

[AussieWebmaster]

I think Spam is Spam... trying to define it is superfluous. It is determined by the engines themselves - not by us.

Optimization is producing the best possible results - whatever the engines themselves define as against their rules becomes Black Hat by default. But prior to the outlawing of same color as the background text - it would have been incumbent on an SEO to use it - if you strive to do the best for the client.

There is no sense in us creating a secondary set of rules.

[newreality]

re: "aldo luongo" example above:

oes putting the url within the title, in this case, "Lahainagalleries.com"

help optimize much?

[seobook]

I know you don't want to hear this, but "perky" as you call him can and does run circles around every single member in here when it comes to technical knowledge as well as SEO knowledge.
does that statement include Orion?
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=48

re: "aldo luongo" example above:
does putting the url within the title, in this case, "Lahainagalleries.com"
help optimize much?
likely only for "Lahainagalleries" (and eventually whatever words search engines may thing are semantically related to it)

[seomike]

How about if it get's index, goes through filters, penalties and what have you and still ranks then it's not spam!

If junk gets through a crapy algorithim then they deserve every bit of the spam that shows up in the SERPs.

"There is no such thing as spam, just bad algorithims."
~Brett Tabke

[WilliamC]

I know you don't want to hear this, but "perky" as you call him can and does run circles around every single member in here when it comes to technical knowledge as well as SEO knowledge.

I would be happy to set up some sort of real-time compeition to put that to the test.

[mcanerin]

It is determined by the engines themselves - not by us.

This got me thinking.

In reality, spam isn't defined by SEO's or the Search Engines, it's defined by the searchers.

The search engines are simply trying to use algos to simulate or predict what a searcher would find relevant, or to remove what a searcher would think is spam.

At the end of the day, no one's opinion matters except the SE users. If they are happy, then the results are not spam. If they are not happy, then the results are spam, regardless of some SEO's opinion of their clients website.

Searchers stop using engines that feed them spam, then the engine dies.

A thousand SEO's (or search engines) could stand there saying "but that result isn't spam according to us" and it would make no difference at all to the searchers. Guys, they really don't care what WE think, they just want an answer to their query. It's not a technical issue, it's a fundamental one.

Since many SEO's define their job as taking care of their client first and foremost, it should hardly be a surprise when the searchers don't feel that attitude is serving them - it's not intended to. And I don't really buy a "the searchers are best served by my client being number one" approach to things - it's obviously and by it's very nature biased in favor of the client, not the searcher.

No one likes to feel they are being manipulated, including searchers. They have switched wholesale between engines in the past, and no doubt will do so in the future.

Using this assumption as a basis, I think we could work towards a definition of spam.

I'm going to leave aside issues of ethics for now, even though I personally believe them to be part and parcel things, and focus on one narrow aspect - what is spam?

Lets try this: Spam is deceiving the searcher as to the relevancy of the result to their query.

In this way, a search engine with a bad algo could be accused of spamming just the same as a site owner or SEO could for deceiving a good algo. And I think that's not a bad idea. I think defining spam as something SE likes or doesn't like is giving them too much credit. There are SEs that still present ill-fitting paid ads as "results" (not the majors, but some of the smaller ones). I would call that spam.

BTW, I do think that an algo intended to replicate human preferences can be decieved and still be a good algo, in much the same way you can convince some humans of things that others simply would not accept. It doesn't mean they are not human.

I don't accept the concept of a perfect algo, just a representative one. For one thing, I can (and do) disagree with human edited results, too. But there is a difference between disagreeing and feeling decieved, I think.

I think this is incomplete, but on the right track. Anyone have further thoughts?

I once took an interdisciplinary studies course on the Scientific Method and this was the criteria they used to judge things like this:

1. Explain established observations.
2. Explain new observations.
3. Predict new observations.
4. Be simple.

Maybe that will provide guidance. A definition of spam should encompass results and techniques that existed in the past, currently exist, and may be invented in the future, allow the creation of an algo that detects it before it exists (like hueristic virus checking) and it should be simple and clear.

Ian

PS wow, long post, sorry. I'm in a contemplative mood today...

[DianeV]

Ian, that's pretty good, and seems to go along with what Mikkel said and what search engines seem to try to allow or disallow.

I think, though, when it comes to SEOs' opinions of spam, that there's one extra element: the techniques used to achieve the ranking.

Assume for the sake of argument a page with very relevant (even mind-blowingly, last-word-on-the-subject incredible) information on a topic; assume also that that page also had keywords crammed into every tag, hidden here or there, etc. I'm thinking quite a number of SEOs would call the page spam regardless of the relevancy and value of the on-page information.

Add to that doorways, redirects, cloaking, even more keyword stuffing or whatever ...

Of course, there are those who think spam does not exist, and those that do.

[Marcia]

So, what is search engine spam? We define it as follows:

Search Engine Spam
Any attempt to deceive a search engine's relevancy algorithm

And what isn't spam?

Not Search Engine Spam

Anything that would still be done if search engines did not exist, or anything that a search engine has given written permission to do.

That asserts that it has to be intentional to be spam, which is not accurate. There is plenty done without even thinking about search engines that's out and out spam according to very specific, written search engine guidelines. And not only is it done by people who have no knowledge of SEO and don't care to, but they have never taken the trouble to read any guidelines. They have been penalized for things they've done, and they deserved it. Those are spammers.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Marcia, I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the spam that search engines should, and do, deal with. You seems to be including spam that dosn't rank at all. However, if the spam never hits the user I would not call it spam and one thing is for sure, I've never seen any engine deal with it. Why remove "spam" that dosn't spam anyone? Dosn't spam have to actually spam someone before it's spam? If spam is spam just by nature, not by spamming anyone, then my newsletter could be spam too - even tough I haven't sent it yet, but just because it has the potential to spam, right? I don't buy that.

If you think the guidelines search engines publish about spam is how they manage spam I think you are naive. Those are public policies written to be easy to communicate but they are not even close to as detailed as the spam fighting really is. It's much easier to tell people not to cloak and such then it is to descripe complex editorial rules. So that's what engines do. But does that mean search engines remove cloaking, just for cloaking? No way. I've seen cloaked sites thats been in the indexes, ranking well since the late 90's - and they are still there, search engines know about them and they do not care. Why? Because those pages (the ones I am talking about) does not harm any search users.

[AussieWebmaster]

Of course, there are those who think spam does not exist, and those that do.
It was originally term to refer to mass unwanted mail... and has since been used as a coverall for all things bad about internet activity

[AussieWebmaster]

Marcia, I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the spam that search engines should, and do, deal with. You seems to be including spam that dosn't rank at all. However, if the spam never hits the user I would not call it spam and one thing is for sure, I've never seen any engine deal with it. Why remove "spam" that dosn't spam anyone? Dosn't spam have to actually spam someone before it's spam? If spam is spam just by nature, not by spamming anyone, then my newsletter could be spam too - even tough I haven't sent it yet, but just because it has the potential to spam, right? I don't buy that.

If you think the guidelines search engines publish about spam is how they manage spam I think you are naive. Those are public policies written to be easy to communicate but they are not even close to as detailed as the spam fighting really is. It's much easier to tell people not to cloak and such then it is to descripe complex editorial rules. So that's what engines do. But does that mean search engines remove cloaking, just for cloaking? No way. I've seen cloaked sites thats been in the indexes, ranking well since the late 90's - and they are still there, search engines know about them and they do not care. Why? Because those pages (the ones I am talking about) does not harm any search users.

This is a good example... is this post spam of spam... are we using the term way too generally and should we be more specific and isolate each action and have a term to describe it... eg. doorway pages, alt tag stuffing, etc.
By using the word spam it brings with it the connotation of being negative which is part of the comment but it does not explain in many cases why it it bad (or wrong or not suitable or whatever "not right" action).

Let's be more specific and not brand everything as spam - surely we can use other terms and with them better explanations of the activity.

[sugarrae]

"The fact that Google also points to and endorses "perky's" white paper on spam says something in and of itself"

G is probably hoping that all the people who see themselves as being more ethical than others will read it, use it as bible and make *their* job much easier. As said above, spam is an SE problem, not an SEO problem. SEO's deal with risk, not spam. G would probably endorse anything that helped create less people looking for and using the weaknesses in their algo. I am not making a stance on the white paper itself, but rather G's motive in endorsing it.

[MrMackin]

"There is no such thing as spam, just bad algorithims."

hmmmmmmm

[I, Brian]

Spam is deceiving the searcher as to the relevancy of the result to their query.

Ah...but then, what is "relevancy"? :)

[mcanerin]

LOL, good point!

Uhhh, for me it would be giving me what I'm looking for. But I must concede that what someone else is looking for using the exact same search could be very different. I don't envy the search engines - they really need to be mind readers - though apparently they are working on it. (http://www.google.com/mentalplex/MP_faq.html) ;)

Having said that, I have often done searches and not found what I wanted, but did not consider the result to be spam, since the results were related. It just wasn't helpful, and I revised my search, assuming it was my fault. But if the results had been unrelated and obviously manipulative then I would question the search engine and the website owners, rather than myself, and move to a different engine.

I may not be the typical searcher, but that is what I do. If the result on Google doesnt' answer my question but the results seem close, I keep trying variations of the search until I do get the result I want (or I finally give up after a long time). But if the results appear spammy and manipulative right away, I'll often switch to Yahoo or Teoma after only one or two searches.

Since that's the case, the fallback position would be either personalization (coming soon to a computer near you! Sign up and tell us everything about yourself!) or providing results that are considered relevant to the most people possible - which afaik is their current position on things.

And if the searchers don't like that, they can leave. Which they will (and do).

If Google announced tomorrow that sites that use Flash in any way were considered spam (because they were not able to index them properly, or whatever) and removed them, then the disappearance of a great many useful and popular sites would result in lousy results to the searchers. It probably would not bother many SEO's much - many try to get rid of Flash whenever possible, and likely THEIR sites would get a big boost in rankings. But people would leave.

In this case,the search engine (and SEO's) would be wrong, and would pay for it in loss of market share. The searchers (as a total group, not specific individuals) define spam, not the engines, and not the SEO's.

My opinion of course,

Ian

[ihelpyou]

To all new webmasters and site owners out there, or whoever might be trying to figure out this thread:

Don't believe this thread at all. It's very bad for the industry. That's all I will say because I don't wish to debate with this topic.

[WilliamC]

To all new webmasters and site owners out there, or whoever might be trying to figure out this thread:


Please do read this thread and use your own intelligence to decide your own interpretation of what is and what is not spam. Do not walk blindly thru this world with a closed mind just because someone tells you something. Use your own judgement and thought processes. What really hurts this industry is people thinking they should do the search engines job for them instead of just concentrating on their own job, not having your own judgement and opinions.

[I, Brian]

To all new webmasters and site owners out there, or whoever might be trying to figure out this thread:

Don't believe this thread at all. It's very bad for the industry. That's all I will say because I don't wish to debate with this topic.
Don't believe what about this thread? It's a discussion, with no absolutes, merely constructive opinions.

Why do you therefore regard such a discussion so negatively?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

ihelpyou, you have posted before that you do not want to debate. Thats your choice. However, I think you have learned by now that this forum is open to different opinions on topics. In fact, thats what we think is great about it. If you are looking for a place that only salute your opinions you will probably keep getting disapointed here.

Personally, I do not have a problems with disagrements in a good discusion. I don't think the purpose have to be to convince everyone else that you are right. I believe a good discussions is a way to get into the details of the different opninions. I like to understand what the people I do not agree with think, and why they think so. I may not end up agreeing with them but I still learn a lot from it. But then again, thats just me :)

[ihelpyou]

If you are looking for a place that only salute your opinions you will probably keep getting disapointed here.
You are quite right. You won't be seeing me here too often. My opinions are not wanted in here as the views expressed by many in here are not my views and would never be my views. Not the views of many others as well.

Forums take on the views of the "majority" in most cases. All forums are different. We all tend to congregate and 'hang' with those of "like views". That's simply a fact of life.

Good luck to you though....

[seomike]

To all new webmasters and site owners out there, or whoever might be trying to figure out this thread: Don't believe this thread at all. It's very bad for the industry. That's all I will say because I don't wish to debate with this topic.


Welcome to a forum with shades of gray and advice that will take you to the top.

[Nick W]

That's all I will say because I don't wish to debate with this topic.

Please, please let it be so.....

I'm so despartely fed up with the "broken record" approach to intelligent debate...

Nick

[seomike]

If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all *post edited by me :)

[Daria_Goetsch]

Let's get back to the topic and try to keep focused on it, keeping personal remarks out of the conversation. Thanks everyone. :)

[mcanerin]

I've got some opinions and theories on this, as do a lot of other people.

For myself, I'd be more than happy to have a pet theory get shot down if in the process I learned something or was better able to approach a problem in the future.

Sometimes it's not the destination that's important, but the journey.

Ian

[I, Brian]

I disagree - the journey is more important than the destination - because when you reach your destination, you simply have somewhere else to go.

:D

But back to the discussion - the reason I raised "relevancy" is that I once had a someone protracted discussion with someone, at v7n (http://www.v7n.com/forums/index.php) when I moderated SEO there.

I'd raised the term "relevancy" in a reply to someone, and it soon became clear that even the word "relevancy" means different things to different people.

By that I mean to some people, "relevancy" was interpreted as "theming".

[mcanerin]

I disagree - the journey is more important than the destination - because when you reach your destination, you simply have somewhere else to go.

I think you are agreeing, not disagreeing - read the post again - I think you missed a "not" :)

The problem with relevancy is that there are two parts to it - the users perception, and the programmers interpretation of that perception. the SE's only have control over one of those halves, so I suspect complete relevancy is going to be out of reach for quite some time.

For example, lets say I want to buy some new china for a wedding gift. I type in china into google. Guess what I get back? No, don't guess, do the search yourself - it's all about China, as in the Peoples Republic of China.

Is that result spam? Is a site about the country of China trying to get presented to me when I type in "china" attempting to spam me? Deceive me? I don't think so, personally.

In this case, it's not relevant to me, but it's not spam. So I'm not sure connecting relevancy to an individual searcher is an appropriate measure of what is or is not spam. It's totally unfair to expect an SE to read my mind. And if they read MY mind, it's possible the search results would get worse.... ;)

Ian

[MrMackin]

IHU has always been that way.
Just continue the discussion and move on.
imo

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I agree, relevancy is, like so many other words in our trade, not a well defined term. And when it comes to what a relevant search result is, and is not, there are probably just about one opinion for each webuser. Thats why personalization, regionalization and other ways to segment behaviour groups is becoming such a hot topic.

What about if the search engines let the users adjust their own spam filter settings - just like you can disable posts from certain users in this forum, or the way you can adjust most e-mail spam filters. Maybe users could block certain languages, certain domains, blocks of IP's etc.

It's totally unfair to expect an SE to read my mind. And if they read MY mind, it's possible the search results would get worse....

No they should read our minds :) Joke aside, regionalization, personalization and other forms of behaviour or user specific targeting is exactly an attempt to "read our minds" - or, as close as we get to. I don't think we will get anywhere near 100% relevancy (however academic that term might be) before each and every users have his own specialy tailored search results. Many of of may even need several profiles: One for work, one for home and one for long lonely nights :)

With a higher degree of user specific tailoring I think spam will play a less significant role.

[seomike]

I say if you want to define spam make your own engine and don't dictate what "you think" is spam.

Visible on page spam, I think everyone has a probelm with (it looks tacky and ugly)

Non visible on page spam, I say let the engines do their job and if it sits in the SERPs after you've submitted report after report then shake your fist a the SE's and not the optimizer 'cause ya just got schooled' :D

[Nick W]

With a higher degree of user specific tailoring I think spam will play a less significant role.

I tend to agree, but that's going to take quite some time, users have to get a little more savvy or SE's do. Both would be good but it's a fair mountain to climb.

Nick

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

users have to get a little more savvy or SE's do

I think it's all up to the engines. After many years trying to educate average users about search I've given up. Well, maybe not given up, but I definately am not as naive as I used to be thinking that I could teach users to become better searchers. I believe now, that search engines has to do the majority of the work and become better for users, no matter how little users know.

[mcanerin]

I agree Mikkel,

It's possible that once personalization has been implemented that the spam issue will be diminished. I doubt it will go away though - for example, I get an average of 500 pieces of email spam per day, and I'm quite careful about my email address. Obviously not careful enough, but no use crying over spilled milk - the address is out there now.

None of this email spam ever gets answered, but that doesn't seem to stop them. As long as it is profitable to do so spam will be generated.

If ALL SEO clients began to insist that all their sites were completely guidelines compliant, then no doubt all those "evil spammer SEO's" would be pure as the driven snow overnight, at least for client sites. It's like prostitution, as long as it's profitable, someone will be trying to profit from it. When it starts being profitable to do something else, then and only then things will change, imo.

Further, I think that personalization may simply open up new areas to spam (errrr... market) in. I pride myself on sticking with "white hat" techniques, but I'll be looking to see if there is a way to see if I can present my clients sites to their target market just as hard as anyone else.

Some people will be looking for compliant ways. Others will be looking for sneaky (ummm, "highly effective") ways, and some will be looking just for the sheer exploratory joy of figuring out how things work. I'm in two of those categories.

No doubt there will be "compliant" and "non-compliant" ways of doing it that will be discovered, and then will will be hip deep in the spam issue again :(

But that doesn't mean we should not try to figure things out. There has been a lot of progress already. Even people considered to be "spammers" and proud of it, usually take an effort nowadays to get "targetted" traffic (and even *gasp* conversions) rather than just traffic, which is what used to happen.

Besides, sometimes I learn stuff. I now know that there are legitimate uses for cloaking, for example. Not search engine cloaking (IMO) but redirecting spam bots and site rippers, for example. This is a change from my old "all cloaking is wrong" stance. Now it's just "most". lol

But without having gotten into an arguement with a cloaker I would not have never bothered to check. Now I'm still set against SE cloaking, but can discuss the issue more intelligently, and am more open to listening to counter arguments. To me, that's the reason to have discussions in the first place.

Hmmm, went off on a tangent there. Must go get more coffee....

Ian

[massa]

>that search engines has to do the majority of the work and become better for users, <

To me, (knowing that many would likely disagree), this is only logical and as it should be. The search engines should do the work because they are the ones with the most to invest. They are the ones who stand to profit the most. They are also the ones who have made their money by doing the most bragging over the years about not only the size of their databases but their relevancy as well. Some might call that successful marketing.

This is the primary concept supporting my belief that there is simply no such thing as search engine spam. There are only things search engines like and things they don't. Things that make money or reduce expenses and those things can change at any moment. Apparently, when it serves the engine best.

Of course, the engines would say it only changes when it serves the SEARCHER best and that little piece of artful public relations just got one five year old company valued at about $30,000,000,000. WOW! Count those zeros and tell me you're not impressed. Now decide for yourself where lies the lion's share of the responsibility to improve results.

I believe that local results, community based results and searcher filtered results will change the industry little as far as the perception of ethics and relevancy within the industry are concerned. Those shifts in search customer service and features will likely open new markets by offering more opportunities to smaller, local based firms. Our numbers will grow as will the debate. It will also provide opportunities to firms who can develop and market on a wholesale level, tools, software and services to help those smaller firms find, define, organize and execute strategic organic placements. That will not change the relevance of Mikkel's statements to this topic. It will still be the lions of search making the lion's share of the revenue.

My guess is the #2 kid, even in local, community or filtered results, will still bitch about the #1 kid being a filthy spammer who is keeping the "REAL" quality content, (the content belonging to kid #2 of course), from being found first thereby depriving the whole world of the "REAL" best results.

[bablo]

Contrary to a lot of people contributing to this discussion I don't think spam can be as easily defined by 'that what Search Engines define as spam'. I'd like to think that search engines take every action needed to please their users. So, if they are the ones defining the meaning of 'spam', then their definition will surely be based on the public's notion of relevancy.

Relevancy in relation to :
- a user's information need is in the eye of the beholder.
- a user's expression of his/her information need, is also in the eye of the beholder.
- a query - mostly - is not!

In danger of taking this discussion to unwanted academic levels, I'll say only this : A user's query is the formalization of his/her information need. Any web page's relevancy in relation to a query is defined by :
1. the visible occurence of the query's terms.
2. the visible occurence of conceptually linked terms (topicality).
3. the conceptual similarity with documents linking to the web page.

So, when somebody searches for 'china', results about the people of China are as relevant as results containing information on china pottery. Search engines can only deliver relevant documents for a query, since they can't guess a user's information need. Personalization of search technology will only help formalize this need (interests) if the user is willing to provide extra information, which is not often the case.

All pages that don't relate to a query in one of the 3 ways just mentioned, can be considered as irrelevant. When an irrelevant page has high ranking because of intentional incorporation of misleading information, it is called spam. SEO techniques mostly are so obvious that intentionality can easily be determined.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

since they can't guess a user's information need

I do not agree with that. I was once part of a team that developed a plug-in for one of the major ad-servers. The plug-in used user level profiling and a sort of neural network to determine what ads each users was more likely to click. Once this filter was inserted the click rate went up with up to 40%!

You'll be surprise of how precise you can actually "guess" using such techniques. This is not about being perfect - it's about being better. User behaviour profiling can definately increase the quality and percieved relevancy of listings. I think the biggest problem for search engines doing this is resouces. Scaling such systems up to the index size and millions of queries they have each day is not a trival task.

[AussieWebmaster]

I do not agree with that. I was once part of a team that developed a plug-in for one of the major ad-servers. The plug-in used user level profiling and a sort of neural network to determine what ads each users was more likely to click. Once this filter was inserted the click rate went up with up to 40%!

You'll be surprise of how precise you can actually "guess" using such techniques. This is not about being perfect - it's about being better. User behaviour profiling can definately increase the quality and percieved relevancy of listings. I think the biggest problem for search engines doing this is resouces. Scaling such systems up to the index size and millions of queries they have each day is not a trival task.
So it worked something like Google optimized adword creatives

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

If you mean the optimization we, SEMs do, yes, but this was fully automated. The same model used for this filter would theoretical be possible to use on search too to improve likelyhood to click which I think is one good indicator of percieved relevancy. There may be other good factors but this is one.

[AussieWebmaster]

If you mean the optimization we, SEMs do, yes, but this was fully automated. The same model used for this filter would theoretical be possible to use on search too to improve likelyhood to click which I think is one good indicator of percieved relevancy. There may be other good factors but this is one.
No Google will present by percentage the creative that is getting the better CTR... it increases the delivery to one particular creative based on the higher CTR thus optimizing the ads delivered.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

OK, you meant that part :)

Anyway, this is still only ad-centric optimization - what I am talking about is individual user profiling. Based on actions users take they are dynamically assigned to more and more specific bahaviour groups as we learn more about them.

[AussieWebmaster]

OK, you meant that part :)

Anyway, this is still only ad-centric optimization - what I am talking about is individual user profiling. Based on actions users take they are dynamically assigned to more and more specific bahaviour groups as we learn more about them. Smart Search

[cuzco]

You are quite right. You won't be seeing me here too often. My opinions are not wanted in here as the views expressed by many in here are not my views and would never be my views. Not the views of many others as well.

Forums take on the views of the "majority" in most cases. All forums are different. We all tend to congregate and 'hang' with those of "like views". That's simply a fact of life.

Good luck to you though....

Be nice if you stuck around so we can hear arguments from different perspectives. I hate forums where everyone is of the same opinion and simply agrees with the moderators – means i have to visit many forums to get different views.

Though i don’t agree with some of your viewpoints there are quite a few risk takers in here so its good for people, especially the new ones, to hear why some techniques could be considered risky.

[WilliamC]

Be nice if you stuck around so we can hear arguments from different perspectives.

Agreed. Running away just because some wish to debate your points, instead of actually telling them the why does not help anyone learn anything new or get different viewpoints to consider and they can sometimes walk away with incorrect information because of it.

[youngpup]

>>I hate forums where everyone is of the same opinion and simply agrees with the moderators...

Except when the forum includes virtually all the big names in SEO as mods or members. That's a forum where one can learn. IMHO

[cuzco]

>>I hate forums where everyone is of the same opinion and simply agrees with the moderators...

Except when the forum includes virtually all the big names in SEO as mods or members. That's a forum where one can learn. IMHO



Didn’t intend to imply this forum was biased.
Just mean to say that Doug, who is also very well known should stick around as its good for the forum to have as many views as possible – even if i don’t agree with all the views i like to stay open minded. As it is at moment the majority of posters on here seem(impression i get) to hold different views from Doug. Also be nice to see more posts from the lurking black hat, sorry high risk takers. But guess they keep a low profile for a good reason :D

No offence to anyone, but SEO reputation don’t mean a fat lot to me, some of the best known SEO’s are very good at promoting themselves and little else. I tend to ignore post counts and other status prefering to judge the quality for a forum my how its moderated and how people argue their points with evidence instead of wild speculation. Glad to say that so far i think all the moderators here are doing an excellent job, and am impressed with how many knowledgeable people are posting here.

[rustybrick]

Guys, please get back to the topic at hand. Let's try not to mention individual names. Thanks. :)

[ihelpyou]

Someone asked if I would reply. I'll just say this.

This thread has went in many different angles. Confusing is the word I would give it. You have to remember that "many" new webmasters might be reading in here as SEW has thousands of subscribers to their newsletter. This is my one reason I feel compelled to clear up some things.

First off:

The idea throughout this thread is that there is a "direct connection" between SEO's, SEM's, website designers, and website owners to "Google Users", and is just not right.

The title of this thread was this:

"when are pages spam?"

I'm very sure the poster did not mean "when are pages spam to a Google user".

They meant "when are pages spam to Google!"

Talking about what a "Google User" might think or deem as spam is absolutely looking at it from the wrong angle. A Google user is "not" "our" user. They are "Google Users!" They only become "our" user if "our" page is displayed, and the "Google User" clicks on "our" link and goes to "our" site.

We... meaning all SEO's, designers, owners, are "offering" our pages of content to "Google" to display in their search results. Our commitment is to Google, not a "Google user". It's "Google's" sole job to offer it's database full of web pages to the "Google Users" as deemed appropriate according to "Google" and not according to "us". We don't think for Google. Google thinks for itself. It's up to Google whether or not she displays "our" page in a SERP on any certain keyword phrase. We have absolutely no control over what a "Google User" might "think" about our page, unless that user is "on" our page. We do have control about what or how our page is displayed in the Google database.

If a "Google User" likes the Google results/SERPS, that user will continue to use Google for searching, etc. If a Google user does not like the SERPS, it will stop using Google and do it's searching elsewhere. In other words, we have no control over Google's own users, so when this thread is asking about when are pages spam?, it's asking "when does Google think our pages our spam" and NOT when does a "Google user" think our pages are spam.

Talking about "user spam" is missing the boat and confusing the real issue. If Google does not like our page for whatever reason it may be, it may not display our page. Period. It's up to Google. If we as website owners or SEO's don't follow the Google guidelines, then we are spamming Google. We are "not" spamming a "Google user".

Discussing about what a "Google user" might think about our pages is irrelevant at best. That is making quite a darn leap when we are not submitting or "offering" up our pages to any Google user......... but we "ARE" offering up our pages to Google. Period. Google has algos to determine which pages to display for which keyphrases. This has zero to do with a "Google user". It's up to Google to display the most relevant pages it can to it's "own users". When we as owners and/or SEO's try to manipulate our pages to make them more "relevant", we are basically trying to manipulate the Google results to make our pages more relevant than they might otherwise achieve in Google. This is a bad thing if we do so by ignoring the Google guidelines. It's a good thing if we do so by following the Google guidelines. The page is spam if "ignore". The page is not spam if "follow".

None of the above has to do with the "Google User". It's a kind of contract between "US" and "Google". If Google does not like the contract, Google won't display our page. If Google likes the contract, Google "will" display our page.

This is all pretty simple stuff.

Thanks for reading. :)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I must say it's one of the more obscure theories on spam I ever heard - very far from my own opinion and experience.

To me it's got everything to do with the users. I do not have a contract with Google and I never submit pages to them. I have no direct dealings with Google on inclusion in their index. My main responsibility is with the users. With Yahoo!Search it's different - they actually do have a contract I can sign and pay for inclusion. In this case it's a clear cut business relationshsip. With Google it's not.

In my experience you will always be two steps behind if you do what Google tells you to do, or even if you reverse engineer their actions and algo as of today. Google's focus in making a good search engine is the users. If I focus on the users too I will strategically be on the same level as Google - not two steps behind.

I ask this again:
If a newspaper editor is so stupid that he accepts and publish really bad press releases in his paper will that be to blame on "spammy companies"? No, I don't think so, and I do not think many editors would say so either. They understand that the responsibility for making a good newspaper is the editors, just as it's Googles responsobility to make good search for their users. So why is it that we keep focusing so much on spam-issues? I don't find PR companies or newspapers spending this much time complaining about "spammy press releases"? In fact, if I do not submit my sites to Google this is like a newspaper picking up a press release I did not send to them and then later complain about the quality of it. Sorry, but I find that very childish.

Bu then again, I don't actually hear Google complain too much about spam - or the other engines, for that sake. They just deal with it. The funny thing is, I see most public complains coming from fellow SEOs that don't seem to be able to manage the competition - not consumer groups, not the press, and not the engines. That, I think, is important to note.

[ihelpyou]

Okay. So you are saying you are directly connected to a Google user? Tell us again how that can be so?

If that is so, then you should be submitting your pages and manipulating your pages for that user, right? You have no commitment to Google at all then, right?

If that is indeed the case, then you should be disallowing Googlebot from crawling your page. Your post indicates that spam has "everything" to do with this "user" that happens to go to Google to search on something. You are directly connecting your page to a "user" you don't have yet. How is that again?

wow.

[ihelpyou]

Kikkel; I'm trying to put myself on "your" side of this and figure out where you are coming from, but I'm having a tough time of it.

Let's say "you" own this search engine. You either 'use' to or you still "do" own one.

I am a website owner with pages. I want the "Mikkel" search engine spider to crawl "my" pages and "index" my pages in "your" search engine. I don't put in a disallow file.

You on the other hand are trying to build up your search engine and get "many" users to visit you and do searches at "your" search engine.

Tell me how you have made the "leap" of "your" search engine users also being "MY" users?

Isn't it the responsibility of "you" as the search engine owner to show the most relevant pages you can for a query to "your" users? What does this have to do with my pages? My pages are not directly involved with "your" users unless "your" users happen to click on "my" page in "your" SERPS. My page got into "your" SERPS because "your" search engine deemed them as relevant. Forget about any guidelines. My contract is with "you" and "your" search engine, and "not" with "your" users. It makes no difference whether I paid "you" IE: Yahoo, or I did not pay you IE: Google.

[dannysullivan]

Pages are spam whenever a search engine decides they are spam -- because we operate within their boundaries, so they are the defining authorities. That's pretty simple to me.

I won't go into more depth on this, because only two weeks ago, I already did go into depth in this post (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=9114&p=9114) -- as did many other people within this thread: whitehat vs. blackhat, it is all BS (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1081).

I'd really encourage everyone interested in this subject to read that, if you haven't already. You might also review this other one that just two weeks ago touched on the same issues: Black Hat or Not? Linking technique using PHP (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1103).

Hopefully, this thread will advance on things already said in those. In some cases, that looks to have happened. However, the mods have also warned a couple of times to keep things on track. If they stay on track, the thread will stay open. Otherwise, they'll close it down -- especially in light of the fact that this particular issue has had two very long threads already in as many weeks exploring the issue.

Now I'm going back to vacation!

[searchengineblog.com]

The problem with these threads is that there isn't a singular definition of spam.

I am, first and foremost, a Google user. To me, spam is a search result containing low value sites unrealted to my query. The search result may contain sites by whitehats, blackhats or no-hats, but if it doesn't answer my question, then I get frustrated. Being a white hat does not automatically mean your site is valuable, merely that it conforms to an abstract set of technical guidelines <yawn> So what? Did your site answer my question!

A search engine views spam differently. From what I understand, a search engine considers spam to be anything that tries to game their relevancy system. Most SEO (including so-called whitehat) probably falls into this category.

An SEO views spam as....well, it's been debated for years. Glass. Houses. Stones. Pot. Kettle. Black. He says. You says. They says.

Until the search engines police their published guidelines consistently, then the nature of their actual policies are open to debate. And "spam" will have multiple definitions depending on who is doing the defining.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I focus on the users because, as searchengineblog.com say: "... if it doesn't answer my question, then I get frustrated". As engines basically just want to make a good product and do it profitably they do focus on users too. I am not talking about who is connected to who or who wons who - I am just talking about my focus and strategy.

It dosen't make sense for any search engine to fight pages that theoretically may be spam, or violate their guidelines, if it dosen't upset the users. Even though search engines do well finacially today they off course have to watch resources too. So, in my experience, they focus on pages that disturb the user experience by spamming.

It's not difficult to find examples of pages in any search engines that violate their guidelines and that would be very easy for them to remove - even algorithmically, but they chose not to spend resources on it - and I think it's because it's not degrading their product: The search experience.

Some may claim that another reason search engines keep spam in their index is that size matters :rolleyes: I guess you probably get more headlines these days by adding a few billion pages to your index then trying to explain the complexity of relevancy to the public. Even if all those pages are crap that never make it to the top of any searches. But then again, thats just talk ... :D

[ihelpyou]

I focus on the users because, as searchengineblog.com say: "... if it doesn't answer my question, then I get frustrated". As engines basically just want to make a good product and do it profitably they do focus on users too. I am not talking about who is connected to who or who wons who - I am just talking about my focus and strategy.
Yes, but again, that focus is confusing to the reader in here.

Again; The first post in this thread was "when are pages spam?".

He meant "search engine spam", and not "search engine user spam". There is a difference and an important one.

The search engines deem what pages in the indexes are relevant. The users of that search engine are displayed what the search engine deems as relevant. If that search engine user thinks the results are not relevant, that user finds another search engine.

"WE" cater to the search engine. The search engine determines what spam is or is not. Not a search engine user.

[WilliamC]

I dont think thats quite true Doug. Yes, you are correct that the search engine determines what is spam. But, and it is a big but, they do that based on the user experience. We all know of quite a few pages using cloaking, hidden text, and many other so-called spammy techniques, that are in the index year after year after year. Why? Because even tho these pages may go against the law of the guidelines, they are relevant to what the user is looking for.

The se's are all about relevance. Their spam policies are enforced based on the relevance to their users search.

So in essence, you are both correct. You have to look at the entire picture, the rest is semantics.

[NFFC]

>Pages are spam whenever a search engine decides they are spam -- because we operate within their boundaries, so they are the defining authorities

I couldn't disagree more, 180 degrees wouldn't do it justice.

>we operate within their boundaries

I have a 3 star hotel [not really but..], some day I hope to be a 4 star, maybe just maybe one day I could dream of being a five star.

To achieve that I need to give my customers exactly what they need, to reach even 4 star I need to be almost obsessive compulsive about my customers needs.

I'm not a fool, I understand that for people to get to my hotel they need to drive down a road. I need to make sure that my hotel is easy to travel to, I may even put a few signs on the road to help them.

What I won't do is allow the road diggers [good people that they are] to dictate how I run my hotel.

Good "hotels" are rare, road diggers are 10 a penny.

That's pretty simple to me.

[ihelpyou]

I dont think thats quite true Doug. Yes, you are correct that the search engine determines what is spam. But, and it is a big but, they do that based on the user experience. We all know of quite a few pages using cloaking, hidden text, and many other so-called spammy techniques, that are in the index year after year after year. Why? Because even tho these pages may go against the law of the guidelines, they are relevant to what the user is looking for.
So?

Goodness. Posts that like to confuse and obscure the real issue are a dime a dozen.

Again; Please read the "first" post in this thread. What exactly did the poster mean? Again: "what pages do the search engines deem as spam". That's what the poster was asking with the question.

No amount of turning things around and talking about what a search engine "user" sees as spam does any good for anyone at all.

>Pages are spam whenever a search engine decides they are spam -- because we operate within their boundaries, so they are the defining authorities

I couldn't disagree more, 180 degrees wouldn't do it justice.
Of course Danny's post is right. Where have some of you been?

And of course we all see spam in the search engine indexes. That certainly does "not" mean the engines Love spam, does it? It also does not mean the engines condone spam, does it? What it really means is that:

1. If they humanly viewed it, it might be spam to them.
2. If they humanly viewed it, it might not be spam to them.
3. If they humanly viewed it, it "is" spam to them.
4. If they humanly viewed it, it is "not" spam to them.

None of the above mentions what a "search engine user" might think or may not think of the SERPS. In the "context" of the original post of "this" thread the question was about when a search engine might think a page is spam.

It's up to website owners to put their "best face forward" to the search engine in regards to their targeted phrases. It's up to the search engine to put their "best face forward" in regards to determining relevancy to a query made by their "search engine user".

"We", the owners and SEO's and designers, have a responsibility to show our best face "to the search engine". A search engine user "votes" by visiting that search engine and doing searches. If that user does not like the results, that search engine will eventually fail.

A search engine user is "not" our user. A search engine user is the "search engine's user".

[MrMackin]

>A search engine user is "not" our user.

Doug:
We control the SERPS

[ihelpyou]

Doug:
We control the SERPS
Oh good. That must have went into affect just recently. Since that is the case, I'll make sure all my clients are number one for "every" keyword phrase they wish. I'll write Google tonight and tell them that. I'll also guarantee a number one listing on every keyword phrase.

Please explain now how you come to the conclusion that:

"We control the SERPS"

[seobook]

Oh good. That must have went into affect just recently. Since that is the case, I'll make sure all my clients are number one for "every" keyword phrase they wish. I'll write Google tonight and tell them that. I'll also guarantee a number one listing on every keyword phrase.

Please explain now how you come to the conclusion that:

"We control the SERPS"

If you are doing it right you wouldn't even need to write Google...it would just happen automatically ;)

[Jill Whalen]

I'd love to back you up on this one, Doug, but this just doesn't make sense to me:

A search engine user is "not" our user. A search engine user is the "search engine's user".

Yes, first, the search engine user is the search engine's user. But ultimately, isn't the goal for that search engine user to become our users? i.e., a user of our Website?

You talk about designing your sites for the search engines. Isn't that bit wacked? The search engines don't buy my services, the search engine users do.

(Of course, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what search engines consider spam, but I just had to reply to this.)

And fwiw, I do believe that the only ones who can truly say what search engine spam is, are the search engines themselves.

[Nick W]

Never thought i'd agree with Jill ;)

No amount of turning things around and talking about what a search engine "user" sees as spam does any good for anyone at all.

This seems quite indicative of many of your arguments posted in this and similar threads. You miss the point.

The SE's users are potentially *our* users. That's the way it works, how else could it work? How do you think the SE's reach policy decisions on irrelevant SERPS?

C'mon! Keep up at the back! hehe.....

Nick

[Marcia]

Google is focused on users and the webmaster/seo public has been repeatedly advised to do likewise. It goes something like

"Do your site for your users, and you'll do well with Google."

I've been slapped on the wrist more than once with that myself, and I've read it so many times I've wondered if they make all their people memorize it. That's exactly what they want us to do - they don't want us deliberately making sites to rank well.

[projectphp]

Now I'm going back to vacation!
So THAT is how to get Danny away from his holiday: talk about spam...

When are pages "spam"?
When they match the definition that we agree with ;)

No seriously, that is 100% the answer. Think about parallels: when is killing murder, and when is it manslaughter? When is driving fast speeding, on what roads and at which points on those roads? Whan is drinking "underage drinking" and illegal, and when is it OK (18 in Australia, 21 in the USA, never in some countries). When is a naked picture "art" and when is it pornography?

To assume that, in one line / post / thread the answer can be accurately answered is unrealistic. 99.9% of us really agree that there is a point at which a page is "spam" 9in quotes because the word has no real meaning), we just like to waste our time arguing over where the line is, how thick it is and what colour.

Personally, I would rather argue over whether Australia's Olympic medal tally, for < 20 million people, is better than China or the USA's :)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

The whole discussion about who "owns" the user I personally find quite funny - but not very relevant.

The ISP's will claim THEY own the user
Doug claim the search engines own them
But what about the site that lead the user to the engine?
What about the sites that lead the user to that previous site?
What about me (or you), that told the user to go online in the first place?
And what about me? I think I am the only one that own me - the user!

We all live off the same users. Nobody owns the users. I don't personally want to be owned by anyone. As I move around the web noone can claim they have any rights to me - I just surf around. Sites I do not like I leave, if they a really bad I may hate them (for a while) but none of them have any ownership of me or my actions.

We all exploit each other the best we can and try to make a living out of it. The search engines exploit content they did not create, the SEOs exploit the service engines provide hand in hand with commercial companies, the press exploit it all by writing about it, SEMPO exploit it by organising us (or, at least trying to :)) and the ISP's, tracking service providers and analysts just try to get a cut of it all.

Trying to define who exploit who the most or who owns who is to me a very silly discussion. To me it's got more to do with how you treat the ones that you actually connect with, deal with, buy from or have some other sort of relation to that you or they need.

[ihelpyou]

I guess most in here "miss" the point.

This thread takes a turn to "what is spam" and goes into this:

"The search engine user" determines spam as if it's relevant to the user, it's not spam"

That has been the argument of spammers forever and ever.

The search engine user does NOT determine what spam is. The search engines determine what spam is.

Jill: NO. You miss the point. Please read this whole thread and maybe you can see my argument. Some have continually said that users determine spam. They have said that "as long as the page is relevant to the user". That's "FALSE".

"WE" offer content to the search engine "first" when/if the "context" of the discussion involves a search engine. The first post asked this question:

"When are pages spam?"

In that context, pages are spam "when the search engine says they are spam!!!!" Period. This has ZERO to do with a search engine's "user". ZERO. This kills the argument I and WE have heard forever from spammers that the user determines spam and if the user thinks a page is relevant, then it's not spam. That's BS. That's false.

That's my whole point.

[Nick W]

>>when the search engine says they are spam!!!!

multiple exclamation marks? dude, take a break, relax a little, find somthing you find less upsetting to be involved with...

We'll just carry on...


Nick

[ihelpyou]

Jill wrote:
Yes, first, the search engine user is the search engine's user. But ultimately, isn't the goal for that search engine user to become our users? i.e., a user of our Website?
Of course. But how does a search engine user become our user as well? Why they must find our link to our page in the search engine results, right? And how did our page get into those search engine results? It got in because the search engine "allowed" it to get there. That "HAS" to come first. A search engine says "yea" or "ney" to our page. It's up to them. If the search engine said "ney", our page would not be in the result. If our page was not in the result, then a search engine user would NOT be able to click our link in that result, right?

Spammers make a direct connection to a search engine user. It's in their best interest to make that connection because then they can say "pages are spam if the page is not relevant to the search engine user". That is simply not true. Pages are spam when a search engine determines the page is spam.

You cannot make that direct connection to the search engine user when you are discussing spam and the search engines. That connection does NOT exist, because if it did, ALL pages ALL the time would always be the search engine databases. There would be NO guidelines by the engines. The only guidelines would be what the search engine users have as guidelines.

The argument I describe that spammers use absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.

[ihelpyou]

Nick, some of you need that from time to time. :D

This is so much of common sense. It's hard to believe many of us don't understand why all of this is so hard for some of you to understand.

[Nick W]

Pages are spam when a search engine determines the page is spam


er..... Doug? People have been saying that all along. Are you responding to the correct thread?

You really do make your arguments seem a little foolish when you get all hot and bothered and dont listen to what others are saying...

Nick

[ihelpyou]

Yes I am.

This thread is discussing the "user" and whatever the user thinks is relevant. That's why I felt the need to clarify that it's not up to the search engine user. It's up to the search engine. Search engines determine spam, not users. Please read the whole thread.

[Nick W]

Man, why do you have to ruin a good thread everytime?

Im not going to bother responding to you in this anymore, you dont listen, you just have your agenda and your mind is closed.

Nick

[Daria_Goetsch]

Time to take a breath everyone. Take a step back...

Ok, now please proceed with the discussion, keeping to the topic. :)

[I, Brian]

Well, to return my original question - obviously there are many interpretations of what is "spam".

The reason for asking the original question, though, is that obviously SEO sometimes dances upon a fine wire of acceptability (when, at least, trying to be acceptable).

So I figured I should set out a code of ethics (http://www.britecorp.co.uk/ethics/) as a point of reference.

A starter, perhaps...

[mcanerin]

I'm confused.

This whole "the SE defines spam, not the user" concept is something I'm not getting here.

Maybe it's a definition thing, since I'd be pretty annoyed by being accused of being a spammer because I care more about the visitors to a search engine (and from there to my site) than the search engine itself.

I design for visitors, with an eye to SE issues, not the other way around. I also design with an eye to the disabled and to non-standard browsers, and I don't believe that makes me a spammer, either - even though the vast majority of my visitors will never see or take advantage of said code.

SE compliance is a sub-set of SE Spam. It is not the same thing, IMO.

If I create my very own search engine, stuff it full of crap, garbage and affiliate sites, then push paid ads to the top and don't let people know they are even paid - then what I'm getting from many of the above posts is that the results are NOT spam? They are compliant by definition, since I populated it and it's my site.

So as long as I own a search engine any crap I put out isn't spam, by definition? BTW, there are numerous freely/cheaply available scripts that will allow you to do just this, so it's not like I'm making up an impossible sceanario just for arguement's sake.

I think that Google, et al, have the last word on whether a site is compliant with their guidelines, but I have serious doubts they are the final word on what spam is.

If they did, why did people leave their old search engines and start using Google? If the SE defines that what you are looking at (as a result of sites that are compliant with their algos) is acceptable, then shouldn't you accept it and be happy?

I don't accept that :P

If you want to optimise for Google, then you are choosing to play by Googles rules and should obey their guidelines. Simple. But doing something to decieve visitors while technically staying within the guidelines is still spam, IMO.

And what happens when in order to be compliant with Yahoo's guidlines you violate Googles? You are automatically a spammer no matter what you do because you can't comply with both?

Ian

[ihelpyou]

If you want to optimise for Google, then you are choosing to play by Googles rules and should obey their guidelines. Simple. But doing something to decieve visitors while technically staying within the guidelines is still spam, IMO.
Yes. It sure is spam.

You and I do not disagree on anything at all.

You also agree that just because a page might be relevant to a search engine query, does not mean that page is also "not" spam. That's my point. Spammers try to confuse and obscure the issue of spam by saying stuff like it's up to the user, when in fact, it's not up to the user as the search engine determines what is spam and what is not spam. We have to abide by "their" guidelines. We have no direct connection to the user as that is the search engine's user. The search engine has to 'accept' our page first, which means that page is now in the index to possibly be seen and visited by the search engine user.

The whole issue of this thread revolves around "when is a page spam". A page is spam when the search engine says it's spam. The user has nothing to do with it. This thread got around to turning and discussing things like: "If it's relevant to the user". That's false.

[rustybrick]

"If it's relevant to the user". That's false.

But don't search engines want to provide relevant results? As long as relevancy is optimal, then the search engines job has been accomplished.

[ihelpyou]

Of course the search engines want to provide relevant results. They do so for their users. "We" don't define what is relevant for the search engine though. The search engine defines what's relevant for their users.

Again; In the context of defining "when pages are spam", the search engine user has nothing to do with it. It's the search engine's job to deem which of our pages is indexed, and then using their algos determine which pages get positions for which keyword phrases. None of that has anything to do with the search engine user. If that search engine user does not like the results presented to them from the "search engine", that user might just go to another search engine to search.

It's not "our job" to determine what might be relevant to the search engine user. That's the search engine's job.

[NFFC]

>But don't search engines want to provide relevant results? As long as relevancy is optimal, then the search engines job has been accomplished.

I'd agree with that.

This is from memory so may not be 100% accurate but even Inktomi in their infamous Hall of Spam database said words to the effect of " Never delete: Sites that contain unique content not to be found elsewhere on the web".

>who "owns" the user

Nice post to Mikkel, made me stop and think, thanks.

[rustybrick]

I agree, search engines have the ultimate say as to what is relevant for their users. But if they do not define relevancy properly, the user (as ihelpyou/doug said) will go elsewhere.

So when are page spam? When they are not relevant?

[ihelpyou]

So when are page spam? When they are not relevant?
No. That's the argument some spammers would use. Pages are spam when the search engine deems them to be spam. If a page clearly is not abiding by the search engine guidelines, it makes NO difference whether that page is relevant to the user or not, ... it's still spam.

[rustybrick]

No. That's the argument some spammers would use. Pages are spam when the search engine deems them to be spam. If a page clearly is not abiding by the search engine guidelines, it makes NO difference whether that page is relevant to the user or not, ... it's still spam.

Ok - sounds good.

Is this thread over yet? :confused:

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

From an SEO point of view I have found it to be a much more solid and long term strategy to focus on the users. By doing so I have managed to keep good rankings and not getting penalized with any of the hundreds of sites I have worked on.

Search engines publishing of guidelines have proven to be to unreliable a source - they can change it whenever they want, they don't allways remove sites that actually do violate the terms but do on the other hand sometimes remove sites that dosen't violate any of the written guidelines. Users are a much more steady goal to focus on. Relevancy to them dosn't change as much as search engines ever changing view on specific issues.

If you focus on the users you focus on the same goal as the engines have. That has proven to me to be the most secure way of never getting caught for spamming. I don't care too much if some fanatics can interpret the search engine guidelines in a way that may deem my sietes spam when I know, by experience, that the search engines won't penalize them - as they don't damage the search result.

[ihelpyou]

If you focus on the users you focus on the same goal as the engines have. That has proven to me to be the most secure way of never getting caught for spamming. I don't care too much if some fanatics can interpret the search engine guidelines in a way that may deem my sietes spam when I know, by experience, that the search engines won't penalize them - as they don't damage the search result.
I'd like to see your proof of that statement.

I can show you countless pages/sites that have been penalized and/or banned because pages did not follow the se guidelines, BUT they might have been relevant to the user.

To make a statement such as that is very much confusing the issue. From your statement, people can take away from it that it's perfectly fine to throw up "doorway" domains that redirect to the real website as that site might be relevant to the user. That's plain silly and very damaging to new people reading. You should never tell people that it's okay to disobey the engine guidelines and just make sure your page is "relevant" to the "search engine user". How can you possibly educate the public that way?

[NFFC]

>I'd like to see your proof of that statement.

Doug you need to get a grip, Mikkel has SEO'd more sites than you could even count. He was instrumental in running a very good scandinavian search engine, he has been around longer than even you.

Sometimes you just have to listen, now would be a good time.

[ihelpyou]

Sometimes you just have to listen, now would be a good time.
Yes, and that is the problem.

These forums have the most "guests" as simply coming here to read than any other. The subscriber list of the SEW newsletter is in the hundreds of thousands I am sure.

If this industry does not want to "educate" the right way to new people, then what's the point? Don't you realize how many new people are jumping online daily and trying to learn? I simply advocate good teachings. You have to understand people like Mikkel are seen as a leader. He is a moderator in the most visible search engine discussion forums on the planet. Because of that, he needs to be careful what is posted. This place is just not a bunch of SEO's and webmasters "hanging out". This place is viewed by Many more webmasters who are trying to figure things out and trying to learn.

The statement by Mikkel has no stipulations. It simply reads that it's okay to spam as long as the search engines don't catch you. That's just not a good idea to be teaching in such a high profile place.

I'm VERY sure Mikkel is good at what he does. I can almost agree that maybe he has Never had a client penalized. But he needs to explain things. With that statement, it should have had a disclaimer like this:

"It's okay to put up a page that is relevant to the search engine user and have No regard for any search engine guidelines, but please understand the possibility "does" exist that a search engine might penalize your page if you don't follow the guidelines".

That's my point.

And you saying that Mikkel has SEO'd more sites than I have may be true, or it may "not" true. Do you know if it is? Also; just because he use to have a search engine means what exactly? I've had my fair share of clients over the past 7+ years so making that kind of statement as fact is risky at best.

[Brad]

The search engines certainly have the right to control their own indexes and ranking. However, their exclusion of spam is the search engine's opinion that the page in question is spam. That is was Google argued in the Searchking case and the court agreed. Their opinion. It does not make that page spam in any universal sense. Another person, a human editor, another search engine might disagree and think that page is wonderful.

Ultimately the only opinion that counts is the individual user and the market place will decide if the search engine's opinion is correct.

[NFFC]

Brad I liked your post so much I clicked the rate the post button, thank you, that is a good perspective.

[WilliamC]

Spammers try to confuse and obscure the issue of spam by saying stuff like it's up to the user

Okay, this is funny. Doug, how come everytime a thread comes out where most disagree with you, you feel you have to start in on the "spammers do this" or "spammers do that" wagon? I mean, come on dude, unless you are a spammer, you have no idea what they do.

I did not say users determine what is spam. I said quite specifically, that the search engines are all about the user experience, thus their guidelines are developed with that in mind. You do not have to like that it goes against your point of view, thats fine. But that is a fact and as several people here have pointed out, Google themselves have said that exact thing point blank.

The searches determine what is spam, not us, not the users themselves. But the users experience *is* taken into account by google when developing the guidelines.

Rather than start off trying to make everyone think that so and so is a spammer, just because they disagree with you, try a little parallel thinking (or is it lateral?) Open your mind a tad, you will get much further.

[WilliamC]

If this industry does not want to "educate" the right way to new people, then what's the point?

What exactly is the "right way" to educate Doug? Your way only?

Personally, discussions with many viewpoints such as this one do more to educate people by giving them educated material and allowing them to make up their own mind which makes more sense.

It seems to me as if you are merely trying to say "my way is the only way". You are sadly incorrect.

[WilliamC]

If you focus on the users you focus on the same goal as the engines have.

Google says that exact same thing basically on their site as well. To make pages for the user as if the search engine did not even exist.

Quite simple to follow the above. And it says a lot. Granted, some will say, what has that got to do with the first post, but I am not about to try educating people with closed minds.

[ihelpyou]

Personally, discussions with many viewpoints such as this one do more to educate people by giving them educated material and allowing them to make up their own mind which makes more sense.
Yes. If your goal is to keep the general public in a state of constant confusion then more power to you. Not me and others. Educating the right way as to what is spam and who determines spam should be the goal in my opinion. To teach other stuff like the search engine user determines what spam is, is simply not teaching.

This stuff should not politicized. Politics is all about obscuring and blurring things. This industry does just that and then sits back and wo