SEW Forums & Spam Reporting Policy

[dannysullivan]

We've had discussion among both members and moderators in the past about formalizing a spam reporting policy for the SEW Forums, such as here: Reporting "Spammers" at SEW (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2191).

For the record, we generally do not allow it at the moment. But we haven't updated our FAQ to reflect this, and we're overdue to make that happen. So, we'll get it done this week.

This is what we're considering:

Spam Reporting: The forums are not designed to be a way to report spam indirectly to the search engines. Instead, the major search engines provide ways to do this directly via these addresses (INFO WILL BE LISTED HERE).

Instead, we'd encourage spam discussions be oriented toward particular tactics. In other words, don't ask if a page is spam. Ask if something in particular on that page or some particular tactics might be deemed spam and provide some specific examples that illustrate without actually showing the page in question.

Posts that do name specific sites will be edited or deleted per the moderator's descretion. If you are concerned about a post that violates the forum's spam reporting policy, contact a moderator directly for action. Do not attack the poster within the thread.

In some circumstances, direct references to sites may be allowed. This are likely situations where well-known companies or web sites may be involved in a spamming incident that is being widely discussed among search news resources.

OK, comments welcome.

[Nick W]

Instead, we'd encourage spam discussions be oriented toward particular tactics. In other words, don't ask if a page is spam. Ask if something in particular on that page or some particular tactics might be deemed spam and provide some specific examples that illustrate without actually showing the page in question.


The bit i've bolded leaves too much to misinterpretation assuming, as i hope, you mean that pointing at specific pages is NOT allowed?

Maybe this:

Instead, we'd encourage spam discussions be oriented toward particular tactics. In other words, don't ask if a page is spam. Ask if a particular tactic might be deemed spam and provide some specific examples that illustrate without actually showing the page in question directly or indirectly. This includes things like "if you search for...".


Of course, all of this would be helped if some active mods where around when these things kick off. Weekends in particular are a great way to report spam at SEW becuase often either no one is around to do anything about it, or if they are around, they're not doing anything about it.

Bringing in some more mods might be a good idea, you must have a feel for who would be suitable by now, i can think of a 4 right off the top of my head (and i most certainly do not include myself)

Some of your current team are inactive as far as i can tell, time for a cabinet reshuffle? :eek:

Nick

Edited because i didnt get my point across clearly.

[ihelpyou]

Spam Reporting: The forums are not designed to be a way to report spam indirectly to the search engines. Instead, the major search engines provide ways to do this directly via these addresses (INFO WILL BE LISTED HERE).
Posting names of spammers was/has never been about "indirect" reporting to the se's, but it's ALL about warning the general public about spammers and scammers. Places that don't warn the public "until" it's too late are simply protecting the spammers.

I actually agree with Nick on that point: You cannot possibly "point" to specifics of spam without actually pointing to specifics of spam IE: examples. That statement is certainly unclear. I've read at other places where someone posted a spam example on a page, the url was then deleted, and the thread stopped cold. Why? Because no one knew what the heck the poster was talking about at that point. The thread was then useless to everyone unless you PM the original poster to get the example. Not helpful at all.

This only further hides the spammers and makes them very happy. Good for you all! :)

[Nick W]

You want to do something about this public execution then danny?

If the above is to become policy, then having your admins allow public spam reports before it comes fully into effect will not help will it? - that thread is a disgrace, and it makes some people very nervous about posting here at all.

In fact, one guy told me that the reason he wont post here is becuase of this tendency for public outings.

that cant be good...

[dannysullivan]

You want to do something about this public execution then danny?
Actually, we did kill that thread. I logged in today, saw a number of things to deal with and decided to get this new thread going first, then pick up on the others right after.

In fact, one guy told me that the reason he wont post here is becuase of this tendency for public outings.
My problem with that, and with your own thread on the issue of spam reporting here, is that you make it sound like the forums are rampant with public spam reporting. They aren't, nor have they been. That's why we haven't formalized a policy on this until now.

It is appearing to be a problem, but it is not dominanting the forums. We will get a policy in place that we think benefits the entire community -- but I think we deserve a little more credit than you're giving us.

Some of your current team are inactive as far as i can tell, time for a cabinet reshuffle?
From what I can see, folks have been plenty busy doing moderating this weekend. Weekends ARE slower. That also means that if something stands longer than normal, a few hours or a day, it's also likely to be seen by far fewer people. So some moderation about the real impact would be considerate.

The bit i've bolded leaves too much to misinterpretation assuming, as i hope, you mean that pointing at specific pages is NOT allowed?
Yes, the idea is that you'd explain what you saw, not point to a particular page.

Having said this, I'm sure there will be times when we do decide to point at a particular page. Personally, I can find it maddening for people to talk and talk about a search for "widgetA widgetB" bringing up siteA that has X which doesn't seem right in some cases when just showing the real example is much clearer.

One thing that might help is to also in the policy say something like "if you do want to name a site, get moderator clearance." Then the mods could sort of peer review if they feel something should be named.

We're looking for a balance of people feeling comfortable taking part in the forums with also being able to learn rather than guess sometimes about what's being discussed.

[Nick W]

One thing that might help is to also in the policy say something like "if you do want to name a site, get moderator clearance." Then the mods could sort of peer review if they feel something should be named.


Then you wont solve the issue. It will be luck of the draw whether it's allowed or not depending on which mod you pm.

Danny, you either allow spam reporting or you dont - i appreciate you like to be balanced, it's one of your greatest qualities IMO but allowing some finger pointing, and having that decision made by individual mods will not help.

If i want to report a competitor, or show an example that could well be another members website at SEW i just have to pm the rght mod, i know who they are so i assume others do.

In a case like M$ doorway pages i agree with you, but pointing out specifics is a frightening prospect to some and it will hurt your forums I think.

If a member does not know enough about web dev to be able to describe the alleged spam, then they really have no business drawing it to everybody's attention. More often than not it's not spam at all.

Describe the technique, give code examples if needed but do not point directly or indirectly at individual websites or individual serps - that's the way to go IMO

Anything less is just avoiding the issue and keeping the same potential for abuse and mistrust and anxiety that you already have in place.

This is fun on a sunday morning eh? :)

Im off to walk the dogs... cya

[ihelpyou]

Yes Nick. Your reasoning assumes that the majority on the internet and who view in these forums are well versed in spam techniques and can figure out for themself what exactly the thread is discussing without seeing the actual page.

Far from it. The majority out there don't have a clue, including those who view and read in here as "guests". You forget that the numbers of members in forums at one time are "less" than the number of "guests" in forums. You don't realize that people are not knowledgeable. You are simply looking at things from your world and your circle in this industry.

I've received countless emails and PM's thanking me for naming spammers. It's saved many from SEO's claiming this and that. People will say anything to take the money. Protecting the spammers is what this industry is known for.

Remember, this place is not a half private forums where only people in the know communicate with each other. It's very open and many out there have zero clue about anything.

But anyway; JimWorld and mine are the only places that will name spammers and scammers. At least there are two of us.

[dannysullivan]

If i want to report a competitor, or show an example that could well be another members website at SEW i just have to pm the rght mod, i know who they are so i assume others do.
So some credit here that no, it's not going to be a backdoor that you know the right moderator, so you can out a competitor. Or at least credit until proven incorrect, that's what I'd ask.

In a case like M$ doorway pages i agree with you, but pointing out specifics is a frightening prospect to some and it will hurt your forums I think.
I think it would be very, very rare and much more like a case with the Microsoft doorway pages. If it's very prominent, and people are talking about it in various public places, then looking at what exactly is going on may make sense. And again, I'd urge, don't assume the worse -- that we'd just willy-nilly let stuff through. Our primary interest is not to be the spam reporting tool for search engines. The search engines have their own channels for that.

This is fun on a sunday morning eh?
Im off to walk the dogs... cya
I'd prefer to have waiting until Monday, but I was online, saw the issue come up again and figured I'd get things going. But I'm heading offline now to see the kids and so won't get back to responding until the work-week.

[Nick W]

Guess we'll see how it goes then danny, have a nice sunday mate...

Nick

[Marcia]

One of the issues is that of disguised spam reporting. Someone can post asking about a site - which may or may not be their own site (it's been known to happen in this lifetime), or may just reveal search terms that out a competitor who's using less_than above board methods.

Another is unintentional spam reporting. That may not be the motive, but may nevertheless accomplish it - or could be misinterpreted by some when it really wasn't meant to out anyone at all (and I have seen both such cases just recently).

I think that possibly a more general statement than just addressing spam reporting could better serve, in cases where that isn't the intention or when the person may not even know they're doing it - which some truly don't. Sometimes it just flat out takes a judgment call being made in individual cases.

While I agree with the principle that when people take on the responsibility of moderating there should be a level of participation and visibility, if nothing else but being fair to others who have to take on more than their share of the workload when some are MIA. we also have to keep in mind at this point in time that this is the height of busy holiday shopping season, and some people are just flat out too busy with their own or client sites to have much time available for much else. Not a problem, everyone understands and pitches in as they can.

Besides - and this is a very important point - moderating isn't done in a vacuum. There's a team approach here, and what anyone does or doesn't do is quite visible to others which is a very GOOD thing. Not only that, but mods also seek input from the others on questionable issues. In addition - also very important, if not critically important - management is extremely attentive to, communicative with, and supportive of the crew. I don't think I can stress enough how important that point is, especially as it will eventually prove itself with respect to moderator retention and the continuing health of the community.

That is exactly what policy issues like this one are to address and accomplish - to ensure the growth and health of the community and the general welfare of the membership long term.

There is not a moderating environment here of politicking, gossiping, favoritism and factions or discord and dissension, but one of harmony and cooperation, which is not only extremely pleasant, but will eventually prove itself to grow the community in the most positive and productive of directions for the membership at large.

No, so we can see that there's no need to be concerned about "corruption" or differences in mod opinions - not in the moderating environment we've got here, that's so forthright, harmonious, and transparent among the crew - who happen to be among the finest people I've had the pleasure of being associated with in all the years I've been serving in online communities.

[Jill Whalen]

Not allowing spam reports has nothing to do with protecting the spammers, Doug, despite how often you like to say it does.

It simply protects the forum from every other post being someone trying to out their competitor. If you want a forum full of those types of posts, then more power to ya. Most forum owners would prefer a variety of topics instead.

It's the same thing with allowing linking. If you allow any and all links to be dropped, you're basically going to be overrun with spammer link-droppers. Again, if that's what you want your forum to be, then no one will stop you. Most forum owners would prefer not to be overrun with those types of posts and therefore have policies about it, as well as effective moderating to catch it so it doesn't spiral out of control.

I think SEW has doing a pretty good job on both counts, considering how new it is. We forget how long it takes to figure out exactly all the rules and procedures on a forum.

I've been surprised when looking at old posts at my forum from when we first began, to see what sort of crap we let go! I have to slap myself and think "what the heck were you thinking?"! :o

[ta2000]

There should be a hard 'n fast rule against anything that even approaches a spam report in the SEW forums.

Even if somebody says, "go to G and type in 'buy phentermine' and look at the 3rd listing. Is that cloaked?"

If the issue is truly that you cannot discuss a technique without showing an example, GG was able to show several examples at the latest Vegas conf. without divulging URLs. And others on a panel were able to explain techniques with slides. The slides illustrated techniques but no URLs were given. So, it is possible to have a discussion about these things without showing live production examples.

That goes to education rather than outings. If a potential client wants to educate themselves about what an advertising medium has to offer (risks and opportunities), they can make an educated decision regarding whether to proceed. Outings don't work toward that end. If anything, it likely impedes the process.

Having a solid rule for these SEW forums would lessen the effort the admins and mods would expend to patrol the threads.

To me, forums seem to thrive when a high level of education is offered and discussed. Veterans hang out because they're appreciated for their experience and knowledge (and they enjoy teaching). Newbies hang out because the forums become a treasure trove of useful information.

Outings (both aggressive and subtle) may turn the SEW forums into a cesspool of informants.

[ihelpyou]

Protecting the spammers is what this industry is known for.
Yep.

Ask Doug or ask John at JW if that is not absolutely true.

Those who cry the loudest are those who have websites that might be outed by my forums or by the JimWorld forums. If a site was not doing anything spammy, then that site would not care about this "no outing" rule as they don't have anything to worry about when they get up in the morning.

Link dropping? My mods have no problem with it. Promotional drops are simply deleted. Easy stuff.

[mcanerin]

The other issue I have with spam reporting in a forum is administrative.

When you post here, it doesn't just go away after awhile - it's here for a very long time (much to the embarassment of those of us who wish they could take back some of their less inspiring comments from the past ;) ).

So what happens if you say that so-and-so is cloaking or might be doing X,Yor Z? And 3 weeks (or months, or years) later the site is clean or, worse, now owned by someone else? First, you have potential libel issues both as poster and forum owner, and second, it's totally useless to anyone reading it. Worse than useless. Possibly damaging to a newbie trying to learn the ropes on what's OK and what's not.

The same can be said when talking about a site that is a paragon of virtue, currently. Any DMOZ editor will tell you about the old "bait and switch" issue.

Even stupider, I can't believe someone would say "so a search on Google and look at number 3". Huh? What search engine was that again? Have you ever done a search and had the exact same listings come up consistantly over time? Wow! That's great! The rest of us actually have to run ranking reports routinely because every once in a while Google changes the order it lists sites in, Maybe you haven't noticed.....

Very likely number 3 is totally different next week, and now you are accusing someone totally different publicly and in writing, and within a very short time period of your post. Definately legally dangerous. Admittedly I'm a lawyer and react slightly differently than other people, but if number 3 turned out to be me or one of my clients (and there are lots, in very different areas) you'd be hearing about it, and I suspect you would not like that.

If the forum had a time sensitive area that deleted posts automatically after a week or month that would be fine to post there (maybe), but in the rest of the forum it's a waste of disk space and makes it hard to find real, useful posts.

Talk about technique. If you don't know what the person is doing well enough to describe it, either don't post at all and spend some time learning about SEO instead, or post the best description you can and ask if someone can PM you for more details - there are plenty of experienced posters here who could help you with a clearer description. And if no one responds, then you pretty much have your answer as to how important the post is to the welfare of the rest of the forum.

It's OK to try to learn this stuff. No problem. But ask yourself why you are posting. If you are asking if so-and-so is cloaking, have you bothered to even find out what cloaking is? I mean really? Not just vague descriptions and ideas? Why not ask how to spot a cloaker, instead. That would be much more educational and productive. Not to mention a rude awakening...

But if your real reason is to get a bunch of other people to do your dirty work for you because you can't be bothered to learn about your own site and the things that affect it, well, you are in for another rude awaking, I think.

Learn, don't leech.

My Personal Opinion,

Ian

[Nick W]

Nicely put, same thing applies to "look at this page, why is the left menu doing..." ----> eventually the problem is fixed isnt it? Used to have cut'n'paste stickies for removing those links in the css forum on wmw lol!


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mcanerin again


:)

[ihelpyou]

Protecting the spammers is what this industry is known for.

Yep.

Ian: If your site or url was outed one year ago in my forums for spam, and it was spam, and one year later the site is not spamming, so what? If you found the url that's a one year old post, you email the "forum owner" to ask to remove. If you don't do that, tell me again how the forums owner would be responsible?

Sorry, that's not true. You are assuming a forum owner actually reads every post made in their forums on a daily basis, and then, is completely responsible for what every member posts in the forums on a daily basis. Again, not true and is impossible. Yahoo groups was sued for almost this exact same thing and found "not lible".

I have zero problems posting spammers.

Besides, to each his own. I'll gladly warn people. Others won't. No big deal. The thing is, if more forums would have outed Traffic Power along time ago like others did, maybe it would have saved some websites out there from hiring them in the first place.

It's a case of blaming the website owner more times than not. It's not the spammers fault, but it "is" the se's fault, and of course, it's the website owner's fault for hiring the seo who spams and risks their website. It seems to never be the spammer seo's fault. I wonder why that is?

That's fine. Carry on.

[rustybrick]

Is a forum owner liable for what members post in the forum they own?

I know at SEO Chat, anything goes, and Dev Shed is not worried about law suits.

This forum is new, and I have yet to come up with a post being pulled because of fear of a law suit.

[ihelpyou]

No, owners are not. It's impossible. These are discussion forums. Many precedences have already been set about all of this.

If a reason to not out a spammer is because of worries like that, they are unfounded. SEO Chat has it right. I did not know they were like that as well? Cool... interesting.

[rustybrick]

Wooo...

I did not say SEO Chat had it right, or that SEW forums has it wrong. I just explained how SEO Chat worked.

I think by Danny stating "Instead, the major search engines provide ways to do this directly via these addresses..." he is giving a structured avenue for members to report spam, if they want to.

Please do not take what I said earlier to mean that one forum is better then the next. Forums are different and that is what makes them fit a certain type of member (see this thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1944) for that discussion).

[ihelpyou]

I did not post that Barry. I posted:

"SEO Chat has it right."

I posted that. You did not. Where did you get your reaction from? Because imo SEO Chat does have it right. Other places have it right as well. No forums owner is libel for postings made in the forums. Period. I believe it's stated as such by Jupiter Media when you register. If not, it should be stated. It's certainly stated that way in mine.

[rustybrick]

I posted that. You did not. Where did you get your reaction from? Because imo SEO Chat does have it right.

Just making that clear. ;)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

As usual I need to point out that the legal aspects of this discussion appear to only apply to the US :)

Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just important to understand that there are great differences in these matters across different nations.

[rustybrick]

So its clear that it is not a legal issue? Just need to break out the issues.

[Robert_Charlton]

Posting names of spammers was/has never been about "indirect" reporting to the se's, but it's ALL about warning the general public about spammers and scammers. Places that don't warn the public "until" it's too late are simply protecting the spammers.

A spam reporting policy like this could easily allow a forum poster to become a policeman, judge, jury, executioner, smear-campaigner and mob-hitman all rolled into one.

Mind you, I'm not against whistle-blowing in any area of society where it might protect the general welfare... but to allow it to be done publicly and anonymously (as is often the case on forums), without due process and legal protection feels a little bit dangerous to me.

[robwatts]

Bloomin well said Robert Charlton!

My problem with all this is that no account is given for a whole range of factors that also might be at play.

There was a site owner not so long ago at HR who was apparently unaware of what an seo had done to his site. He believed that he'd been banned or penalised in some way, as his traffic had fallen through the floor. He invited comments and help and appeared to be genuinely surprised when various members pointed out spammy technique a b and c. Some people might have taken the view that he knew all along and was fully aware of what he'd done/had done to his domain. Some might have taken him at face value and dealt with the evidence as presented.

IMO it wasn't for us to cast aspertions on his character by suggesting that he was full of the brown stuff and was fully aware of what he'd had done. Only he or the firm they employed would REALLY know this.

In this instance the person presenting himself as the site owner 'outed' his own domain. But it could just as easily have been a competitor, or some other person looking to bring ill will upon this persons work.

What right do we have to take it upon ourselves to expose some hard working fecker out there, struggling to grow a business, earn a living, feed a family etc to the spotlight of some SE employee capable of just flicking the off switch in an instant?

If we feel THAT strongly and have any sense of common decency shouldn't we first ( as individuals) at least consider that MR domain OWNER, might , just might not be aware of what is going on? If it REALLY bothers us so much, shouldn't we at least consider sending him a cursory email to say Hey there Mr Search Engine Spammer Dude, did you know that your site is doing x y and z?

Why, but why must we expose someone who we know not from Adam, to the potentially very damaging effects of some high profile forum frequented by SE engineers and the like. What right do we have?

Robert was so right to highlight what he did, it is effectively tantamount to trial without Jury. Hell, a person could be tried and convicted in their absence, how nice that?

If people want to report spam, thats their business. It shouldn't be the business of everybody else.

[mcanerin]

There have been some pretty "authoritative" blanket statements here relating to cyber law that I think are misleading at best and need to be cleared up.

Here are some of the issues:

A common-carrier is not generally liable for statements they are involved in disseminating any more than the phone company would be. This is legislated in the US via the CDA s. 230 and is acknowledged in Canada, UK and Austrailia under common law, at least.

A distributer is also usually not liable. This covers newspaper carriers, news stands, etc.

A publisher/editor very often IS liable.

The issue becomes: is a forum a common carrier, distributer or publisher?

The answer, IMO, is it can be any of them. Let me explain.

If you practice no effective control over the content of your site, then you are generally considered a distributer or common-carrier. If you practice complete control (for example, pre-moderating) then you would be considered a publisher and would typically be liable.

Forums tend to fall in between these two extremes, and therefore blanket statements regarding liability (or lack thereof) are highly misleading.

It's all about control.

Rule of Thumb: If you have control, you have liability. If you don't and can't be reasonably be expected to, then you don't.

This is basic to most legal systems world-wide, not just for libel but for most other torts and a good portion of criminal law. There are some exceptions, but usually only in the case of clear legislation that overrides this principle on purpose, and they are usually only constitutional if the potential negative results of a wrongful application are minor (ie a regulation resulting in a fine, as opposed to a jail sentence). It's strongly related to the principle of mens rea.

Here are some examples of someone saying libelous things about someone else on a forum and the probable result under different circumstances. Lets assume that the statements are libel for now to make things easy. The stated results are, IMO, the most probable result given current rulings, but should not be considered definitive (anything that isn't a ruling by a supreme court should not be considered definitive, and even that changes from time to time).

1. The forum is pretty much an internet newsgroup with anonomous users, absent administrators (or ones that only monitor uptime, rather than content) and no moderators. Result: Forum not liable as common carrier in US, in the UK it's the Internet Defense, or "innocent dissemination".

2. The forum does not pre-moderate, but has a group of moderators and admins reserve the right to edit posts. Result: Forum not Liable in US (Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc.) I suspect it might be liable in other places, but there is no clear case law yet that I could find. The UK puts the onus on the defendant rather than the plaintiff as in the US, so I suspect they would be liable in the UK. In the UK, you pretty much have to prove complete "innocent disemination" or you fall into the other side of things and are liable

3. The forum requires a login and tracks users, and all posts are pre-moderated or checked by an editor before posting. Result: Forum or Blog liable as publisher/editor.

4. The forum does not pre-moderate, but has an active group of moderators and admins who routinely remove libelous material and the libelous material "got through". Result: forum liable, but can protect itself by removing libelous material quickly when brought to it's attention. In the US, a distributor of defamatory material who is not primarily responsible for the material's content is liable only if that distributor knew or had reason to know of the material's 'defamatory character. Many forums fall under this group.

5. The forum does not pre-moderate, but has an active group of moderators and admins who do not remove libelous material but do actively remove other material.Result: Forum liable since the decision NOT to edit is editorial in nature, rather than oversight or mistake. I believe forums that agressively "out" spammers and assorted alleged scum may fall under this category.

6. The forum does not pre-moderate, and has an group of moderators and admins who frequently add or contribute libelous material. Result: Forum liable as publisher as well as author.

In all cases, the original party stating the libel is liable (Tambwo v. Calvin). However, in cases where liability is joint and severable it's usually easiest to go after whoever has the most money or is easiest to find, which is often the Forum, especially when it's hard to track down the original poster.

Ironically, the forum owners biggest asset, it's moderators and administrators, is also it's largest point of potential liability. Although moderators are often not employees, they can be held to be agents, and therefore can result in the liability of their principle. They are acting on behalf of the forum with knowledge and permission of the owner and therefore can cause liability to arise. So you could find yourself in trouble if you (as owner) or a moderator/admin chimed in and added to the libelous thread, since that not only makes them liable individually, but shows an editorial control and decision regarding the original post (the decision not to edit, in this case).

I'm not certain what would happen if a mod/admin told the original poster that their post was a bad idea to post, but chose not to delete or edit it. I think it would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and would hinge on what was "normal procedure" for the forum in question.

The above doesn't even get into the issues related to the international aspects of the internet. The US rule is that you need to have a firm nexus in order to be sued in a different jurisdiction from the forums "home" ( Stanley Young v. New Haven Advocate, et al.) But an Austrailian ruling about a month ago has challenged that. (Dow Jones). basically if you have a substantial number of subscribers/readers in a country, that's enough to form the nexus for that country, was the ruling.

If a forum has members in China, they can be sued under Chinese law, according to this. Canada is already leaning towards this concept, and I suspect most other countries will, as well. It's unlikely they will simply accept the highly US-centric (and state-specific) rule the US uses. I suspect also that it's a matter of time before the US changes it's mind, as well, if only to allow it's citizens to sue foriegn publications diseminated on the internet. Right now they can't, and I doubt that will last for long.

Naturally, all this assumes that the statements are truly libel. If you "out" a spammer and they really are a spammer, then you have the defense of truth. This isn't the time or place for a discussion on what libel (and spam) is or isn't, so I'll stop now.

Ian

[projectphp]

Why out spammers? Where does it get anyone? Forums are about learning. I never read a text book that said "go to Google and type in "whatever", look at the number 3 result..."

Seriously, if someone isn't knowledgeable enough to explain the spam technique without resorting to specific examples, are they really knowledgeable enough to know it is spam?

[DaveAtIFG]

The majority out there don't have a clue, including those who view and read in here as "guests".

IF that statement accurately describes the visitors to THIS forum, perhaps a paragraph should be added along these lines: "We define search engine spam as using web site ranking techniques that are clearly discouraged in the web site guidelines offered by the search engines" or something similar.

[I, Brian]

Protecting the spammers is what this industry is known for.
It seems that this would be rather mixing up the issues of consumer protection with SEO methods.

So far as I know, for most SEO's, the SEO-client relationship is sacred. It doesn't matter which SEO methods are involved, so long as the client is aware of the degree of risk involved with any changes to the client site.

The problem then arises where companies disrespect the SEO-client relationship, and perform high-rish SEO techniques without client consent.

Examples such as TrafficPower and APlusNet come to mind as companies that have abused the client relationship. But it remains an issue of client trust and good business practice, rather than the actual subject of SEO methods.

Mixing the issues of "consumer protection" with "SEO methods" would therefore be unnecessarily confusing both issues.

So far as I know, SEO's who wear blackhats in the open very much stress that they place a great deal of emphasis on an ethical client relationship - but what they place less value on is a conforming relationship with search engines.

After all, it doesn't take blackhat methods to abuse the client relationship - someone claiming they could rank a new site top for "insurance" on the basis of meta-tags or title changes alone, would be potentially abusing the client relationship.

It's not the hat that matters to clients - it's that a level of trust and openess is maintained.

[projectphp]

without client consent.
I assume, form this, that you support Euthanasia, I, Brian, and abortion, labotomies, testing on mental patients etc etc ;) The myth of client consent is a terrible one, as bad as the white hatters it suppossedly argues against.

Back to outing: I am not sure outing saves anyone from the evils of being sold dud deals by spammers, or anyone else, so the only argument presented for is really a moot point to me, especially as it relates to specific SERPs and specific companies / pages.

[dannysullivan]

Why out spammers? Where does it get anyone? Forums are about learning. I never read a text book that said "go to Google and type in "whatever", look at the number 3 result..."
I've actually done things like this in the past, and I find it incredibly useful. I'll give you some examples:


Google Dance Case Studies (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3286151)
Google's (and Inktomi's) Miserable Failure (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/3296101)
The Nigritude Ultramarine Search Engine Optimization Contest (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/3360231)
The Search Engine "Perfect Page" Test (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/2161121)
Behind The Scenes Of Google's Tech (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/041202-125614)


In all these cases, I've cited real live examples not to out spammers but because it was helpful to illustrate what was going on.

With the Google case studies, all the examples were people who said it was fine to use them. Of course, some of those could have been trying to get a disguised spam report through me. But that wasn't my feeling. Instead, these were all people caught up in last year's Google Florida update who were really lost about what happened. And after reading literally over a thousands posts or more on forums about the topic, I was stick of all the "for widget1 widget2 search, I dropped and have x backlinks." I wanted to see some real stuff -- and I thought others did, as well.

The miserable failure story is an example of a high profile search where what was showing up warranted examination. It was being discussed widely. The nigritude ultramarine contest, same thing.

In the perfect page example, we looked at a variety of results for various terms. Perhaps behind the scenes, Chris Sherman and I might have had some hidden spam outing agenda. But I don't think our readers really thought this (and speaking for us, we didn't, of course).

The behind-the-scenes article is a recent blog post I did, looking at Google's comment about link analysis being "relatively" spam resistant. So I dived in to check on a common spam magnet, viagra, and came away with a low quality doorway page in no time.

Yep, that could be seen as a spam outing -- I did cite a real example, as I thought it was helpful. But again, I think few of my readers thought this was something I did to help police the results on viagra. Rather, it was an illustration in real-life of the problems even link analysis faces.

So as I writer, I've done real-life examples plenty of times. But as I mentioned, I don't think my audience feels I've done this for some particular reason, such as to out a competitor. Instead, there's some good reason for when I do it.

That brings me back to the situation with forums. In a forum, it is easy for examples to be given just for spam reporting -- either really overt ("hey, look at a search on widgets and tell me if what number three does is spam) or more calculated (i was looking for widgets recently, and something strange came up).

We really don't want spam reports of either type. However, I really don't want to see us in a situation where we can't look at specific examples on search engines either, in cases where it seems warranted. This isn't just a forum about search marketing issues. We have sections about search relevancy and searching better, as well. Looking at real examples can be crucial in such situations.

That's why I come back to the idea that if someone wants to cite something specific, a particular query or a site in a listing, we might require moderator clearance beforehand. It's a pain, but it might make some in the community here more comfortable -- but also allow us to look at specifics when the moderators make a judgement that it would be useful.

Another idea is that we have the policy on spam reporting, we recommend that people get preclearance if they want to cite a specific example in a discussion about spam, but we don't require for citing specifics in other types of discussions. The caveat would be that if specifics cited are deemed an end-run around the spam reporting policy, they'll get pulled.

The advantage to this is you are going to get (and already have) new people here who honestly have no care about search marketing but rat. They'll pop into a section, want to raise a question putting that through the preclearance aspect is a pain.

So those are some more thoughts on the matter -- no decisions, just more to ponder.

[Nick W]

>thoughts

You cant please eveybody danny. Time to choose.

[dannysullivan]

You cant please eveybody danny. Time to choose.
Nick, if the choice is we can never cite a specific example of a particular query or a site on these forums out of fear that everything must be some hidden spam report, then I can tell you now that isn't going to be the choice.

There are times when we will absolutely want to look at the results of a specific query or the contents of a specific site. There are times when this is essential or incredibly helpful to a discussion.

I think we can come up with a way to do this responsibly, with the moderators and members all participating.

[Jill Whalen]

The problem then arises where companies disrespect the SEO-client relationship, and perform high-rish SEO techniques without client consent.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. As ProjectPHP said, the issue has nothing to do with client consent. It's easy enough to get client consent if you convince them that this is what everyone else is doing and it's the way SEO is done.

However, unless your client is in one of the really spammy categories online, it's not the way things are done, or at least it doesn't have to be and it's not fair to clients to convince them otherwise.

And even if the client is the one pushing for you to use spam techniques, it's your job as a professional SEO to educate them to the fact that they don't need to go that route and that going that route is not in their best long-term interests.

I know that there are Fortune 500 companies who seek out SEOs to spam the engines on their behalf and I think it's awful that any SEO company would actually do that. A Fortune 500 company does not need that, and that's what the SEO should be telling them.

[Nick W]

Ok, one last crack at getting the message across:

Citing Spefic sites that employ "spam" tactics

On the surface it seems more than reasonable to say that on the whole, you dont allow spam reports directly or indirectly. Bravo. You do have to look a little deeper at the wider implications though if you're going to put that "guideline" in place with the caveat of "There are times when we will absolutely want to look at the results of a specific query or the contents of a specific site. ".

Who's website is it?
Is it my website that will be hauled up in front of the best SEO's in the world for educational purposes? Is it another SEW members website?

How can you decide whether it's a sneaky report or a genuine enquirey?
I dont know about danny and the mods here but I'd certainly not credit myself with the ability to always tell when someone is being sneaky or even outright lying to me. It's actually very easy on a message board as there are none of the telltale little visual clues to give you an idea of whether someone is honest or dishonest in thier intentions.

What are the possible consequences to SEW members?

You have your site subjected to the scrutiny of highly skilled and business savvy search marketers and entrepreneurs.
In a worse case scenario that could mean that your hard researched niche is now public, in front of people that spend a lot of time looking for new niche areas to exploit and make money in.
Your website is stigmatized with the label of "spam" whether it is truly spam or not. Bad for almost every aspect of your site potentially.


And possible consquences for SEW as a group?

Leaving the outing of websites to mod decision rather than a firm policy that everyone can refer to, whether it fit with how I would like it or not, could quite easily create an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion when websites are used "as examples" of spam.
It could actually make the mod/admins jobs even tougher as judgement calls like that require a lot more time and thought than having a simple policy of "describe what you see" not "show what you see".
Potential members that will already not post here because of these policies may be joined by those members that have their sites scrutinized or those that feel that that is unfair and would not want to be a part of such a group if it allowed it.


On a concillitory note
I'll concede that the use of SERPS to provide reference to something happening in the engines such as the Yahoo H vars recently or other interestng examples can work very well. Not if used like "if you do a search for" of course, but with moderator/admin discretion they can be very, very useful and i'd not really want to see you lose that ability provided it was kept an eye on.

However
The pointing at individual websites in unacceptable IMO unless they are of the M$ doorway pages high profile variety. Two reasons for this:

It's not necessary: As has already been pointed out in this thread, it's easier and often far more long-term beneficial to describe the technique and it's effects.
All of the above points


You can see i feel quite strongly about this right? :) If i didnt care quite so much about this place, for it's information (the highest density of pro-grade seo info online), and for it's people, I wouldn't spend half an hour posting about it and making a fuss now would I?

I do hope you can see my point, I think its a valid one but I have been known to do a U-Turn when presented with good argument - I've not seen anything yet though that would persuade me that this is anything short of lip service.

thanks.

[I, Brian]

It's easy enough to get client consent if you convince them that this is what everyone else is doing and it's the way SEO is done.

Indeed - my understanding is that clients are properly informed of such issues in the first place. However, I could be quite mistaken.

Ultimately, I should have clarified my comments with "informed choice".

[dannysullivan]

Who's website is it? Is it my website that will be hauled up in front of the best SEO's in the world for educational purposes? Is it another SEW members website?
No idea -- if it happens at all, it would depend on the exact circumstances involved.

How can you decide whether it's a sneaky report or a genuine enquirey?
First line of defense: we warn that this isn't allowed.

Second line: moderators reviewing things

Third line: members raising to the moderators that something either posted or posted with moderator approval might have more going on.

That's what I'd see in place. Nope, it's not perfect. Put up all the defenses you want, and still a sneaky report might get through. But it's also far from a free for all.

In a worse case scenario that could mean that your hard researched niche is now public, in front of people that spend a lot of time looking for new niche areas to exploit and make money in.
I think there's a difference between naming at a particular page and a particular search.

I think it's much, much less likely that anyone needs to point at a particular web page to illustrate something. In many, many occasions, what's happening could be described without pointing at the page itself. I suspect actual page cites would be under very intense scrutiny about being allowed.

It's more common that you might want to talk about a particular search. I understand an issue that someone might raise a particular query as a means to perhaps get a search engine to examine the sites in that query more closely. But there are going to be other cases when we might want to comment on what a query brings up -- again, as deemed appropriate.

Leaving the outing of websites to mod decision rather than a firm policy that everyone can refer to, whether it fit with how I would like it or not, could quite easily create an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion when websites are used "as examples" of spam.
A policy that the mod might review and allow things would be a firm policy. It's simply a policy that allows flexibility for when we might indeed think something is worth showing.

It could actually make the mod/admins jobs even tougher as judgement calls like that require a lot more time and thought than having a simple policy of "describe what you see" not "show what you see".
That IS the primary policy. I can't stress this enough. The policy isn't "come on over and do spam reports." The policy is, don't do spam reports here -- if you have a question if something is spam, describe what you see without referring to a site. If you absolutely feel something must be pointed at, ask a moderator to review before posting -- and in the vast majority of cases, they'll help the newbie understand they don't need to do this.

That also helps the innocent person/newbie from having their head chopped off by other members who assume they are trying to out someone if they really honestly do just have a question and don't know where to turn.

That covers the issue for those who overtly want to do spam reports. Sneaky spam reports would still come in unless you have a policy of "never point to a particular web page; never mention a particular search query." That has an impact on other topics we might want to raise. We need more flexibility than that.

This is where I think the mods would take a close look at any site/search drop that someone doesn't overtly tie to saying "is this spam" and decide if there may be some other motive behind it.

IE, someone might say I'm trying to rank for a particular term, what am I doing wrong? Spam report? Maybe, or maybe someone honestly looking for help. Someone else might ask for a particular query, what does Google index or how do you feel three different engines compare?

In these type of cases, if there seems something hidden going on, the mod might edit and PM after it has happened. And I think the members can also contribute here. If the mod has missed something that might be happening behind the scenes, the members can help let us know

I'll concede that the use of SERPS to provide reference to something happening in the engines such as the Yahoo H vars recently or other interestng examples can work very well. Not if used like "if you do a search for" of course, but with moderator/admin discretion they can be very, very useful and i'd not really want to see you lose that ability provided it was kept an eye on.

That's what I'm looking to preserve -- the ability to talk about specifics when they are helpful and we really don't feel it's just a spam reporting thing going on.

Again, the line of defenses. The member first of all polices themselves. The mods then form a second line. The community forms the third line. The problem with the third line now is that we don't have a policy out there. So if someone thinks a spam report is going on, it can turn into gang-up time to slam the person who posted originally. I want the policy to make it clear to members that spam reports aren't allowed, and also for the community to know that if they see something they think has managed to get through as a sneaky report, let the mods know so we can act.

The pointing at individual websites in unacceptable IMO unless they are of the M$ doorway pages high profile variety.
I'd stress again that while I don't think we'd completely rule it out, the scrutiny would be especially intense about why we'd have a pointer at anything.

Our first rule about an outbound link is always, is it relevant to the discussion? A second rule I suppose would now be, while this might be relevant to a discussion on spam, is it absolutely essential that this particular site be named or show? Almost always, it is not going to be.

You can see i feel quite strongly about this right? If i didnt care quite so much about this place, for it's information (the highest density of pro-grade seo info online), and for it's people, I wouldn't spend half an hour posting about it and making a fuss now would I?
Nope -- nor would I spend so much time responding if I didn't respect the views of you and others who have concerns over this. This isn't lip-service time here -- we could do that in just posting a sentence.

There is no interest among the mods about the forums being turned into some public spam reporting tool. It doesn't make our lives easier, nor is it that helpful to discussions. But I think we can have a tough policy that is not draconian in never allowing a site to be mentioned. In a very few cases, we might want to do that. I think that will be so obvious to everyone when it is allowed. And if we get it wrong, I'd expect the community will be vocal in letting us know.

[DaveAtIFG]

>The member first of all polices themselves. The mods then form a second line. The community forms the third line

The fourth line of defense is a cease and desist. As the board grows and gains prominence, legal actions, or the threat of legal actions will likely force removing more posts or removing entire discussions. SEF and WMW are obvious examples.

[dannysullivan]

The fourth line of defense is a cease and desist. As the board grows and gains prominence, legal actions, or the threat of legal actions will likely force removing more posts or removing entire discussions. SEF and WMW are obvious examples.
Sure, that could come up on most everything. If it does, that will fall to Jupiter's legal department to deal with.

[dannysullivan]

OK, we said we'd have a spam reporting policy set by the end of this week. Taking all the feedback, here's my long-winded stab at it. Long-winded, but I figured being long was better, in this instance. Let us know what you think.

Spam Reporting

Don't use the forums as a method of reporting spam to the search engines. If you wish to report spam, do so directly to the search engines through general feedback forms or via special pages some offer. Forms for some major search engines are:

Ask Jeeves Customer Service (http://web.ask.com/ContactUs)
Google Spam Report Form (http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html)
MSN Search Feedback Form (http://support.msn.com/feedbacksearch.aspx)
Yahoo Spam Report Form (http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/ysearch/cgi_reportsearchspam)

We do not want the forums used as a public spam reporting tool for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, that's not their main purpose. If we allow spam reporting, the forums could quickly be overrun with these type of posts. In addition, some members are uncomfortable with the idea that anyone might be "outed" in a public manner. To some degree, the forums are a neutral ground where search marketers across the spectrum of tactics that are followed can discuss search. Allowing spam reporting hurts the common ground we wish to offer here.

We do allow discussions of search engine spam in general, such as whether particular tactics or content might be considered spam. In these discussions, we do not allow linking to a particular page or a particular search query to be used as examples in the discussion.

For example, you might see something on a page and wonder if it is spam. Do NOT link to the page itself and ask something like, "Is this spam?" Instead, describe what you have seen on the page within the forum thread in a way that doesn't identify the exact page but does describe the issue you are concerned with.

Similarly, don't ask about specific search queries, as they related to spam. For example, someone might ask, "I searched for 'blue moon shoes' and all the sites look like spam. Is this the case?" Don't do this. As above, describe generally the situation you see in a way that doesn't list the actual query.

In very rare occasions, we may make exceptions to the "don't name a site" and "don't name a query" rule, as they report to spam discussions.

In some cases, it can be helpful to see a particular site or query as part of the discussion. If you feel this would be so, contact a moderator for clearance before this will be allowed. If the moderators agree that something is absolutely essential to be shown, they'll allow a link or an example to be posted with a note that it has been approved.

When RARE exceptions do occur, these are more likely in cases involving popular or well-known web sites or instances where a spam situation has been discussed in a variety of news venues.

In other words, if someone were to point at something on Amazon that seemed like spam, we might allow this to be named given the stature of the site. The site is so important that discussion of any spam issue, if it proved true, would almost certainly not get the site banned on a major search engine (and for the record, this is an example only -- we're not saying there's a problem with Amazon and spam!).

Similarly, if someone were to ask a spam situation that's reached the popular press -- as with the WhenU case (http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3354171) in early 2004 -- sites and examples can be named there. In such cases, you needn't seem moderator approval. But be absolutely sure you feel there is already ample coverage of this if you post. If in doubt, ask a moderator first!

In other discussions on the forums, such as about search quality, relevancy issues and other non-spam topics, the forums generalrule (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_links) that you can link to items as appropriate remains. If you feel it makes sense to link to a page or show an actual search request, you may do so.

DO NOT try to take advantage of this liberalism to do a "hidden" spam report. If the moderators feel something is being posted primarily to focus attention on a site to get it removed from the search engines, the thread will be pulled.

Members are asked to help us in protecting our liberal linking and no spam reporting policy. If you see someone violating the no spam reporting rule, or if you feel someone is trying to do a hidden spam report, please report the post using the Report Bad Post feature. This is the small warning sign icon that you'll see to the left of the Rate This Post link and icon (we'll add words to the icon shortly).

That will send a message out to active moderators who will review the post. Sometimes this will take only minutes. On weekends, when the forums are generally slower, it might take up to a few hours, though we will try to be much faster than this. But the action sent will be attended to.

DO NOT attack someone in a thread that you think is doing a spam report.

Posting to that thread only lets it "live" longer, for one, and possibly be seen by more people. In contrast, reporting the post means the thread won't bump up as recently updated, helping prevent people from noticing it.

The main reason is that such attacks are not helpful to the community as a whole. In particular, this forum has a number of first time posters or those interested in searching issues, rather than search marketing issues, who may be participating. If they make a mistake, it's best that the moderators correct that privately.

In conclusion, report suspicious posts, and moderators will act on them as appropriate.

[rustybrick]

I think that covers it well. I am sure cases will come up that are in the gray area. But that is what mods are for.

Nice write up!

[NFFC]

>Nice write up!

Agreed.

I think that is worthy of support.

[Nick W]

Thanks danny, nice job..

[mcanerin]

I'm definately in favor! Good, well thought out set of rules.

Ian

[Jill Whalen]

It's a lotta words...why do I get the feeling Ian had something to do with this! ;)

[mcanerin]

Only one paragraph and some random mumblings - I think Danny might have a bright future as a lawyer... ;)

Ian

[Jill Whalen]

Danny's just too good at seeing both sides of the issues. It would never fly for a lawyer!

[dannysullivan]

Whew, that's a relief! Thanks everyone for your comments! So that's the policy we'll be going with. Because of SES Chicago this week, Elisabeth probably won't get this added to the FAQ page until that ends. But this is the policy we'll use as of now, and all the moderators are aware of it. In addition, we've made a change to that it's much easier to see how to report a post violating any of our guidelines. The icon for this was always on the title bar above posts. That's gone, replaced with a "Report Bad Post" link. That goes to all moderators at once, so whoever is working can get to things quickly.

[Elisabeth]

FYI -

the Official Policy on this was posted 3/16/05:

Member Code of Conduct:
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_code_of_conduct