On 13 Aug 2006 10:21:17 -0700, "Fikkie" <pascal.beyens@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>>
>> Google can't win this battle (not in the short term), with the right
>> tools you could easily add one hundred 50,000 page sites a day without
>> breaking a sweat, every day for very little cost.
>>
>Google can't win this battle?
>Give me a break. The domains are limited since they al have so much
>pages so all they have to do is put some people on checking feedback
>from webmasters(work with trusted webmasters, candidates enough).

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.

>When somebody sees a domain he reports it and they take it out their
>db. In a few days you can get millions off pages out the db.

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!).

>Do this a year and there will not much people who spent/invest money on
>doing the spamming.

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?

This is why they do so many sites, they expect them to be banned, it's
a war of numbers and they win because some get through (Google can't
get them all quickly enough).

>They have to do just this, costs a few people and theire index will be
>almost spamfree.
>It will not be totally clean but then it's not intresting anymore for
>the spammers. And there lays the problem now, it's intresting.
>
>They can win the battle but i don't know whether it's intresting for
>Google to win it.

You are underestimating the spammers, 1 person can easily put a
billion pages online in a year and not the crap on the sites we are
seeing in this thread (think Wikipedia and DMOZ mirrors etc...). Now
multiply that by thousands of spammers all doing their own thing,
Google can't WIN the battle, it can only fight and hope it gets enough
so it's index isn't ruined (that's a win for Google).

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.

David
--
SEO Services http://www.seo-gold.com/expert-seo-consultant.php
Ode to Ethical SEO http://www.totallyduh.com/ethical-seo-expert.html

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