4 ms·
69% and 31%. It's in their SEC filings. If Google discriminated against websites with ads on it, their SERP quality would drop.
by zone411 16y ago
69% and 31%. It's in their SEC filings.
If Google discriminated against websites with ads on it, their SERP quality would drop.
- bambax 16y agoThanks for the info. But how would SERP quality drop if pages without ads received a boost? Many high quality sites have ads, but not all. Yet all spam sites have ads (or else what's the point of spamming). So by discriminating against pages with ads, you eliminate spam at the (possible) cost of hurting a little legitimate sites with ads. This should be testable.
- zone411 16y agoNot all spam sites have ads. Many online stores are quite spammy, for example, and they only promote stuff they sell themselves. On the other hand, would you consider Wikipedia's huge Jimbo Wales banners as ads?
- notahacker 16y agoExpertsExchange (sells subscriptions) or StackOverflow (funded by ads) ?
- bambax 16y agoGood point, but ExpertsExchange has ads too. It also behaves in a spammy way, burying the answers at the very end of the page. That should be detectable behavior.
- stcredzero 16y agoI bet there's a lot of things that spam pages have in common with regards to things like page placement. So, if Google gets better at quantifying "spammy-ness" there will be an initial drop in spam effectiveness, but then spammers would catch on and emulate the behavior of good pages. Eventually, the spammers' behavior would be indistinguishable from genuine posters. http://xkcd.com/810/ http://xkcd.com/810/
- jonknee 16y agoSome spam sites are simply for PageRank. No ads, just links.