Is Google NOT Serious About Webspam?
Interesting to see Matt Cutts (head of webspam at Google) respond to Thomas Claburn's article on InformationWeek: Is Google's Spam Fight a Sham. Claburn asserts that a post on the Google webmaster central blog about creating startpages is a recipe for spam creation. That's a bit of a stretch but this point is constructive:
Matt Cutts seemed irritated with Claburn's assertion that Google can't be serious about webspam since it runs an ad service for parked domains. It's important to separate Google's natural search program from its paid ads program. Cutts works on the former and has no control over the latter. Still, I'd like to see him involved in this meeting. He seems genuine in his efforts to combat spam, although the issue of snitching on paid links is rather silly (but that's a topic for a future post). I think Google IS serious about fighting webspam in their natural search results but IS NOT serious about fighting webspam on the rest of their system that does not exist on the core Google search property. Think of it this way:
Tags (these are not paid links made w/ TagBuildr): google, spam, matt cutts, webspam, thomas claburn, adsense for domains, startpages, adwords
And therein lies the problem: It's hard to judge intent. Google admits as much by asking its users to submit spam pages so they can be removed from its index. If Google could do so algorithmically, it wouldn't have to ask for help.Claburn then moves beyond startpages (that could be misconstrued as spammy, doorway pages) and claims that Google profits from spam on parked domains:
AdSense for Domains treats domain names like search keywords for the purpose of placing ads on the parked domain... Google, I know, would defend these ads as providing useful information to Web searchers. If you ask me, it's a spam service. Google doesn't like people manipulating its index, but it seems to be okay with Web pages posing as real content.That's a bit of a stretch to use the term "spam service" to describe AdSense for Domains. However, I have seen cases of spam traffic from AdSense for Domains, so I can see why he would make this assertion. Google isn't helping themselves by refusing (so far) to detail traffic on the AdWords side that originates from AdSense for Domains (on the content network but parked domain traffic also exists on the search network).
Matt Cutts seemed irritated with Claburn's assertion that Google can't be serious about webspam since it runs an ad service for parked domains. It's important to separate Google's natural search program from its paid ads program. Cutts works on the former and has no control over the latter. Still, I'd like to see him involved in this meeting. He seems genuine in his efforts to combat spam, although the issue of snitching on paid links is rather silly (but that's a topic for a future post). I think Google IS serious about fighting webspam in their natural search results but IS NOT serious about fighting webspam on the rest of their system that does not exist on the core Google search property. Think of it this way:
- Google = Natural Search + Paid Ads
- where Paid Ads = Search Ads + Content Ads
- and where Search Ads = Search Engine Ads + Parked Domain Ads
- and where Content Ads = Contextual Ads + Parked Domain Ads
It is important to note that in a Clickbot.A-type attack, top-tier search engines would not pay miscreants directly. Instead, they would pay syndicated search engines a share of revenue, and syndicated search engines would, in turn, pay a share of their revenue to doorway sites that posed as sub-syndicated search engines or referral accounts set up by the bot operator.See the problem with Google's stance? Since they don't pay "miscreants" directly, they claim to not be culpable. IOW, it's not up to them to police their syndicated network and deal with these "miscreants" (partners who are creating spam or engaging in click fraud). They don't seem serious about dealing with webspam to me. As for Cutts, he does seem serious. However, since 99% of Google's revenue is derived from paid ads, and more and more of those paid ads are not displayed alongside Google's natural search results, it doesn't matter how serious he is. It's the AdWords and AdSense teams at Google who need to address this issue. Not Cutts.
Tags (these are not paid links made w/ TagBuildr): google, spam, matt cutts, webspam, thomas claburn, adsense for domains, startpages, adwords
4 Comments:
I think the word "spam" has come to take on very broad meanings -- I'm not quite sure what "spam" means anymore. I do think that Google has played a big role in creating what I call "web pollution."
It is pretty easy to see that Google is responsible (at least indirectly) for a whole lot of "very low quality content" on the web.
Virtually anyone can open an AdSense account, subsequently, too many "useless/worthless" websites/blogs, being kept alive by AdSense dollars, are "clogging" up the internet.
So long as the businesses ultimately buying the advertising continue to tolerate their ads appearing on "junk" sites, Google has little incentive to try to evaluate the "quality of the content" on its AdSense member sites. (Remember that AdSense is responsible for almost 50% of Google's revenue; they're not going to "clean house" so long as their customers -- the businesses buying the ads -- aren't complaining.)
The person who can build a search engine that will only display sites WITHOUT AdSense (and other "sponsor" ads) could have a very useful product. Trying to search for information now has become a task of trying to avoid those trying to sell you something.
Getting online, is becoming similar to turning on the television late at night -- "there's nothing on," unless you like watching infomercials....
Yes, I do think "spam" has become a broad term and people probably mean "junk" when they use it. Trouble is, somebody's "junk" or "spam" is somebody else's useful content. Take a look at Squidoo. Hard to tell, sometimes, what's "junk" vs "spam" vs useful content. I think the traditional definition of "spam" indicated a high volume of "junk" information.
Regarding the advertisers who are, inadvertently, funding all of these "junk" or "spam" sites, I do think they're starting to audit their traffic. Google, for their part, is making this easier to audit with the launch of the placement performance report for AdWords on their content network (AdSense).
Also, not everyone searching is looking for information. Many people are shopping. For shoppers, the paid ads are often more relevant than the natural search results. For those looking for information, though, shouldn't someone providing useful information be compensated for it?
>>Google, for their part, is making this easier to audit with the launch of the placement performance report for AdWords on their content network (AdSense).<<
_________________
Yes, it is good to see that Google is moving toward a bit more "openness" in allowing the advertisers to choose where their ads are displayed.
Although, there was some disappointment expressed from some of the advertisers who were involved in the beta "performance reporting" -- the actual product when rolled out, did not give them the extent of visibility they were given during the trial version. Reading (limited opinion here: http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=18191 )
________________________
>>Also, not everyone searching is looking for information. Many people are shopping. For shoppers, the paid ads are often more relevant than the natural search results. For those looking for information, though, shouldn't someone providing useful information be compensated for it?<<
_________________
Yes, and yes! I visit a number of sites with great information running AdSense. For the publishers of those sites to help fund their work with a program with AdSense is not the problem. (My comment about a search engine that wouldn't show sites with AdSense, was mostly tongue-in-cheek.)
My complaint is with "junk" AdSense pages -- I think we agree there is no shortage of that.
I think Google has become so focused on "meeting/beating the analysts estimates" each quarter (and keeping the stock price up), that they have been willing to let the "quality" of search decline if it helps the bottom line. PPC advertising makes more money for Google if users have to "click around" to try to find what they're looking for.
On that subject, I've noticed even when I am looking to buy something and using Google, I often end up sifting through a lot of rubbish -- having to click multiple ads -- to try to find what I'm looking for.
I think (was it last year?) when Google started their "extended broad match" (or whatever it was called) even the paid ads lost significant relevancy when searching to buy something. I found when I searched for something VERY specific (make and model number) I'd end up on somewhat of a wild goose chase even when clicking on an advertiser's ad that seemed to indicate he had EXACTLY what I was looking for.
It wasn't until I read some of the discussion on the Search Engine Watch forums about Google's "expanded broad match" that I began to understand why the relevancy of the search ads had seemed to decline.
Getting users to what they are searching for (whether that be to buy a product or find information) might be Google's goal, but they continually seem to "adjust" their system so that it takes the user multiple "clicks" to achieve their goal.
I think Google continually works for "optimization" of their system -- they try to maximize their profits by maximizing clicks, but do so just enough so they don't lose "too many" advertisers. And I'm not saying there is anything "wrong" with this; it is a "compromise" of the capitalist/competitive market system -- though it does annoy me that Google won't admit what they are doing and keep pretending with their PR that they are almost like some sort of "public service."
I represent a major online advertising company that specializes in a new form of Internet advertising . I am interested in buying advertising on your website and all your park domain names on an ongoing basis, that GURARANTEES that you will get a 100% conversion rate on 100% of your website traffic.
Your website appears to be running ads on some of your pages and we want to pay you a fee for every visitor you receive and GURARNTEE that you will get a 100% conversion rate on 100% of your website traffic. I would like to fill you in on more details. Are you the correct contact in regard to business development for your website?
Like I said we want to pay you a fee for every visitor you receive on your website and all your park domain names.
If you need more details please visit us at tinyurl.com/3yp4yr
THANK YOU
Post a Comment
<< Home