David <seodave@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:

> All true, they could. Though you don't know a domain has a lot of
> pages until it's indexed and then it's too late, the search engine is
> sending traffic, so the site owner has already won.

I jump in the middle, but there are two stages: first is the fetching of
the page by Googlebot, and second is the actual adding of the page to
Google.

So google can do all kind of stuff. Some time ago I suggested to create an
upperbound on the max # of pages based on PageRank :-)

> True, they could and they do to a degree, but there are so many
> reports it would be impossible to act on them all (they have to
> investigate them all!).

True, but don't let that stop you from reporting :-).

> Untrue, lets say it cost $20 to create and maintain a spammer site for
> a week and in that time (the first week) they make $40 and then Google
> bans them. That's 100% profit in a week and you can practically create
> an unlimited amount of these sites for way less than $20. How many
> sites like that would you need to make it worth your while?

Agreed.

> I guess it's like killing rats in a large city, no matter how hard you
> fight they'll always be around, so you are always fighting a loosing
> battle. But that's alright, because like fighting rats as long as they
> don't take over the streets (the important money SERPs) and are
> basically limited to sewers and back alleys (easy unimportant SERPs,
> with not too much money in them) we can tolerate them.

Until you tell everybody there is a 10 USD fee for each rat killed and
brought in. A lot of bad (or often "bad") animals have become (close to)
extinct in such a way.

Also, each blog/guestbook, etc. supporting spam should be fined 10 USD :-)

--
John Freelance Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Firefox Keywords: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/keymarks-explained.html