4 ms·

Right, but you'll also disincentivize legitimate websites that happen to make their money through such ads or affiliate links. Where do you draw the line?

by phpnode 16y ago

stcredzero 16y ago
The solution is simple here: have an alternative search engine that makes their money a different way. Even though it would just be a niche, I bet there's a pretty healthy income to be had for a highly SEO-spam resistant paid search engine. (Supplemented with Google-style search ads.) A small minority would use such a search engine, so the impact on legitimate sites would be minimal.
- phpnode 16y ago
  If your new search engine gets enough traffic to be worth it, spammers will just target your search engine too, and you'll have exactly the same problem Google has now, but presumably with far fewer engineering resources to throw at the problem.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    If your new search engine gets enough traffic to be worth it, spammers will just target your search engine too I think you're dead wrong here. I only need to catch a sliver of Google/Bing traffic for such a search engine to be worth it. Let's say I get a 1% share of traffic -- which I would characterize as wildly successful -- why would it be worth the while of SEO spammers? How many resources can you throw at something worth 1% of your income?
    - phpnode 16y ago
      Because spam is cheap and easy, far easier to produce than to fight, you can spam in your sleep with automated tools. Let's take your 1% example, that's millions of searches a day, well worth a spammer's time and effort. Some people will spam your search engine just because you say they can't, and that kills your unique selling point straight away.
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        Because spam is cheap and easy, far easier to produce than to fight, you can spam in your sleep with automated tools. What you are saying is that that someone could algorithmically determine the profitable targets of spam. This opens the door to an economic hack of spamming. Simply run the same algorithms yourself, then if the spam-profit potential of a particular search is above a certain threshold, simply present a "hammy" search based on well-known authoritative sites. This scheme would work, precisely because spam is cheap and easy. Some people will spam your search engine just because you say they can't, and that kills your unique selling point straight away. This only works against the scheme I just described if you can spam my method for determining "well-known authoritative sites." If you curate that, then you can't. What I'm advocating is actually switching between curated and algorithmic search depending on spam-economics. This means that spamming such a site might end up being equivalent to "internally spamming Wikipedia and StackOverflow." I don't think that's going to be viable to SEO spammers for going after an extra 1% income.
        phpnode 16y ago
        Ah yes, "curated search". That's been tried, and it's literally impossible to keep up to date, web pages change all the time, what was an authoritative site yesterday is a phishing site or online pharmacy today. And you're wrong about the economics of spamming wikipedia or stackoverflow, spammers already target sites like that, there are even spammers who target HN, and your model would just make it even more worth it for them.
        stcredzero 16y ago
        Ah yes, "curated search". That's been tried, and it's literally impossible to keep up to date Weak. I'm not advocating "curated search" for everything. Your point is like trumpeting dynamic RAM over NAND gates and not mentioning caching. And you're wrong about the economics of spamming wikipedia or stackoverflow, spammers already target sites like that, there are even spammers who target HN, and your model would just make it even more worth it for them. Wow. that's kinda fuzzy thinking there. For it to be worth it for spammers to specifically target an anti-SEO engine, it would have to be successful in the first place, which undercuts the point you were trying to make. Also, even though spammers target wikipedia, HN, and stackoverflow, why don't I perceive spam as a problem?
teyc 16y ago
If Google serves AdSense, it already knows how long you as a reader spends on site before clicking through an ad. Presumably, if statistically speaking, visitors have high probability of hitting the back button or clicking through immediately, then it is a red flag that the content wasn't useful.

Right, but you'll also disincentivize legitimate websites that happen to make their money through such ads or affiliate links. Where do you draw the line?

by phpnode 16y ago

Right, but you'll also disincentivize legitimate websites that happen to make their money through such ads or affiliate links. Where do you draw the line?

stcredzero 16y ago

The solution is simple here: have an alternative search engine that makes their money a different way. Even though it would just be a niche, I bet there's a pretty healthy income to be had for a highly SEO-spam resistant paid search engine. (Supplemented with Google-style search ads.) A small minority would use such a search engine, so the impact on legitimate sites would be minimal.

phpnode 16y ago
If your new search engine gets enough traffic to be worth it, spammers will just target your search engine too, and you'll have exactly the same problem Google has now, but presumably with far fewer engineering resources to throw at the problem.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  If your new search engine gets enough traffic to be worth it, spammers will just target your search engine too I think you're dead wrong here. I only need to catch a sliver of Google/Bing traffic for such a search engine to be worth it. Let's say I get a 1% share of traffic -- which I would characterize as wildly successful -- why would it be worth the while of SEO spammers? How many resources can you throw at something worth 1% of your income?
  - phpnode 16y ago
    Because spam is cheap and easy, far easier to produce than to fight, you can spam in your sleep with automated tools. Let's take your 1% example, that's millions of searches a day, well worth a spammer's time and effort. Some people will spam your search engine just because you say they can't, and that kills your unique selling point straight away.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      Because spam is cheap and easy, far easier to produce than to fight, you can spam in your sleep with automated tools. What you are saying is that that someone could algorithmically determine the profitable targets of spam. This opens the door to an economic hack of spamming. Simply run the same algorithms yourself, then if the spam-profit potential of a particular search is above a certain threshold, simply present a "hammy" search based on well-known authoritative sites. This scheme would work, precisely because spam is cheap and easy. Some people will spam your search engine just because you say they can't, and that kills your unique selling point straight away. This only works against the scheme I just described if you can spam my method for determining "well-known authoritative sites." If you curate that, then you can't. What I'm advocating is actually switching between curated and algorithmic search depending on spam-economics. This means that spamming such a site might end up being equivalent to "internally spamming Wikipedia and StackOverflow." I don't think that's going to be viable to SEO spammers for going after an extra 1% income.
      - phpnode 16y ago
        Ah yes, "curated search". That's been tried, and it's literally impossible to keep up to date, web pages change all the time, what was an authoritative site yesterday is a phishing site or online pharmacy today. And you're wrong about the economics of spamming wikipedia or stackoverflow, spammers already target sites like that, there are even spammers who target HN, and your model would just make it even more worth it for them.
        stcredzero 16y ago
        Ah yes, "curated search". That's been tried, and it's literally impossible to keep up to date Weak. I'm not advocating "curated search" for everything. Your point is like trumpeting dynamic RAM over NAND gates and not mentioning caching. And you're wrong about the economics of spamming wikipedia or stackoverflow, spammers already target sites like that, there are even spammers who target HN, and your model would just make it even more worth it for them. Wow. that's kinda fuzzy thinking there. For it to be worth it for spammers to specifically target an anti-SEO engine, it would have to be successful in the first place, which undercuts the point you were trying to make. Also, even though spammers target wikipedia, HN, and stackoverflow, why don't I perceive spam as a problem?

teyc 16y ago

If Google serves AdSense, it already knows how long you as a reader spends on site before clicking through an ad. Presumably, if statistically speaking, visitors have high probability of hitting the back button or clicking through immediately, then it is a red flag that the content wasn't useful.