You know the old saying about not criticizing someone until you walk
in their shoes. But have you noticed how critical many SEOs and
Webmasters are when it comes to the search engines, when they've never
walked "in their shoes"? Spam is a perfect example.
The search engines have publicly stated that over 90% of submissions
made through free add URL pages are spam. A few years ago, a FAST search
engine representative showed me some examples of spam - how they tracked
spammers, the sheer amount of spam coming from just one spammer, and so
forth. Can you imagine how much better their strategies are now for
catching spammers?
It's almost impossible for us on this side of the fence to fathom the
spam problem from the search engines' side of the fence.
Suffice it to say that spam is a major issue with the search engines
in terms of time, resources, and ultimately money. New filters are added
by the engines to combat spam, and the Web community finds new ways to
cheat their way to the top. Algorithms are changed, and sites get
banned. Webmasters scream about how unfair it is, and the saga
continues.
Let's STOP the Nonsense!
Is it fair to complain about "injustices": being banned; the sandbox;
supplemental index; etc., if your site was banned or penalized for not
following the engine's guidelines?
Google, in particular, has clearly stated that it wants content of
value to the Web audience, natural link building, no spam, and other
quite logical Webmaster guidelines.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/webmasters/guidelines.html
Take a Walk in Google's Shoes
Your "Role": Honorary Google Editors
Let's take a walk in Google's shoes. What would it be like to be an
editor of a search engine? What would it be like to have to deal with
spam from their side of the fence?
How lenient should you be? At what point would your patience wear
out? Would you make exceptions to the rules? Why, and when?
Remember: You've posted spam and Webmaster guidelines on the
Internet, but the guidelines are continually ignored. The envelope is
being pushed to the limits.
As a search engine, you want your SERPS to be relevant. If they're
not relevant, you lose your market share.
Our Research
We conducted some research in this area by putting on some editor
shoes. It was an amazing learning experience.
One of the keyword phrases we chose was Viagra. We wanted a highly
competitive keyword phrase in terms of the number of searches performed
on a daily basis, the number of competing pages, and the likelihood of a
high number of SEOs who are actually competing for the phrase. This
keyword met the criteria.
At the time of our research, there were 47,800,000 competing pages in
Google, with a 24-hour potential for traffic in Google (using
Wordtracker numbers) of 3811. The popularity figure for the keyword
across all of the major engines is 6226 (over a 90-day period across all
the engines that Wordtracker gets its data from).
The site we chose was actually #10 out of the top 10 results, but
it's no longer in that position (more details to follow).
More About the Site
The site was a one-page sales letter with content coming straight
from the manufacturer. I found 572 other sites on the Web that were
using the same exact sales copy.
The keyword was being used 56 times in the visible body text. In
other words, the keyword density was way over a reasonable number.
There were no inbound links whatsoever. None - at least none that
were recognized by Google.
So, what do we have? Keyword overuse, duplicate content, and no
off-page factors.
However, the site actually read well. From a user experience, if they
put "viagra" in the search box, they would land on a page that sold the
product. It didn't look or sound spammy in any way. It was written by
the manufacturer as a sales letter.
You have to assume that some people who put "viagra" into the search
box are looking to buy the product. If they clicked on this site, their
query would match their expectations.
How did this Page Get in the Top Results?
It's important to note that the page slipped to #35 within a few days
after we found it at #10, and within a week, it slipped out of the top
100 listings. So, its rankings didn't last.
When you optimize pages, don't you want your rankings to last - to
stand the test of time? You should!
There's a reason this page landed on the first page of results, but
the reason is immaterial. The trick didn't work, plus by mentioning it
here, I'd be opening the door for people to abuse it to try to get top
rankings. Again, the reason doesn't matter. It didn't work.
Looking at the Current Top 10 Results
In studying the top 10 SERPS at the time of this writing, Google is
showing a wide variety of results. The first two results are the main
Viagra.com site. Very appropriate.
The next two results are the FDA.com site. Again, very appropriate.
All of these sites are informational sites about the product.
Other sites are devoted to real people's experiences, other
medical-related sites, risks related to the pill, etc. Some of these
sites may have places where you can order the medication, but they're
more informational sites.
Of course, Google AdWords offer sites where you can purchase the
medication.
So, you can see how truly relevant the top 10 results are. This is a
very important point to understand.
What Else did We Learn?
Spam is in the "eyes" of the editor. We found a site that actually
read well and would serve up relevant results to the end user.
Yet, it was using what I consider to be "spam" strategies. They were
overusing their keyword phrase. They were using duplicate content used
by hundreds of other Web sites.
However, is this the same as using AP copy across the Net for
news-related sites?
The site was of low quality, but does that make it spam?
The Webmaster guidelines don't say anything about low quality Web
sites. In fact, Google's Webmaster guidelines say this:
"Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule
of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done
to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask,
'Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't
exist?'"
This Web site was simply using promotional material to promote their
product. It helped the end user by selling the product they were
searching for. Yes, the promotional material "overused" the keyword
phrase and had been used all over the Web.
This site proves that spam is subjective, and Google editors really
have their hands full. It's much harder than it looks.
In Conclusion
Though we all know what constitutes spam, spam is subjective in many
cases. It's not all "black and white."
Matt Cutts discussed on his blog how innocent Web site owners often
use strategies and don't realize they're spam. Google takes a different
approach to those type of "spammers," versus the more sophisticated
spammers who are trying to trick and cheat.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/notifying-webmasters-of-penalties
So, spend some time walking in the search engine's shoes. Think about
the sheer amount of spam they get, and how they have to protect their
engine from it. Make sure your own sites are playing it straight, and
you'll be helping us all.
Robin Nobles conducts
live SEO workshops in locations across
North America.
She also teaches
online SEO training.
Localized SEO training is now being offered
through the
Search Engine Academy.
Sign up for a
free "SEO Tips of the day."
Copyright 2006 Robin Nobles. All rights
reserved. Used by
permission.
