
How Google Is Cleaning The Web Of Comment Spam - cryptoz
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/15/how-google-is-cleaning-the-web-of-comment-spam/
======
belluchan
It's cute, but negative SEO can lead to extortion.

A blackhat actor puts links to your site all over their network of bad content
sites and then forces you to pay them to remove their link.

A competitor might create bad links to your site to push you down in Google's
SERP and you'd never know what was going on if you didn't know how to look
this up.

A "disavowal tool" was meant to help combat this kind of extortion, but
imagine how much work it would be to monitor this kind of activity and disavow
all sites that might want to create bad links to your site to drive you down.

[https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en)

------
kogir
Google should penalize sites that allow comment spam. Incentives are then
clearly aligned, as the affected site has the power to fix its problem. Sites
that can't afford to moderate their contents should just turn comments off.

As mentioned in other comments, the changes described may just change the
spam. Instead of linking to your own site, you instead link to sites ranked
above yours.

------
ChuckMcM
I suspect that if Google put it's collective brain power on it they could do
what we've done and not rank comment links. One of the 'easy' things to do is
run your ranker on the crawl where you disregard any reader contributed
content. That does wonders. What is less doable is when the blogger is in on
it (as they were with the recent scandal) and the links are in the page.

But here is the thing, Google has a content evaluator as part of their Adsense
for Content product and they should be able to compute the equivalent of the
'hamming distance' between the linked pages and the content on the current
page and construct a decent rank. Certainly that is what I would do if I had
the resources to crawl as much of the web as they do.

~~~
AznHisoka
I'm fairly certain that Google in their 15+ year existence has already done
what you mentioned in first paragraph.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
"Done" is the important word here - done as in wrote the code and performance
tested it and looked at the impact - yes of course. Done as in made PageRank
across Google use it officially - made the algorithm driving billions of
dollars of spending on line ignore all comments. that's a big ask.

------
brulez
This article seems overly optimistic. SEOs can now add spam links to
competitor sites to negatively affect their pagerank.

~~~
yogo
Exactly, and now it puts the onus on the website owners to make use of the
disavowal tool, which can only be done with extra monitoring on their part.

~~~
pgrote
Does the disavowal tool negatively affect the sites being disavowed?

~~~
SteveGerencser
It 'shouldn't otherwise it too could be used as a tool for negative campaigns.
I would assume though that it will be used for looking at trends, footprints
and other methods of better refining the detection algorithms.

------
drakaal
Danny Sullivan and Rand Fishkin just don't know how to do any kind of SEO
beyond link building. Kelly Clay at Forbes wrote a much better article about
how SEO has changed.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/11/19/seo-isnt-
de...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/11/19/seo-isnt-dead-long-
live-seo/)

The spammers have more tricks than they used to, and aren't telling most of
the SEO's how to game the system, but Spam is actually easier because Google
is weeding out the people who don't have the time or ability to do Page
Construction spam.

~~~
arkitaip
You honestly think that Fishkin doesn't know his SEO? Thing is, he has to keep
his reputation squeaky clean because unlike black hats he actually wants it to
last beyond the next ranking update. Most black hats and their clients get
caught sooner or later and then you find them bitching and moaning around the
web how Google's latest ranking algorithm update is unfair and running them
out of business. Guys like Rand Fishkin are smarter than that.

------
nostromo
The sooner we devalue the link of its SEO power entirely, the better.

I've run a small wiki for many years. I'm probably going to shutter it because
it's such a target for link spammers. (MediaWiki's anti-spam tools aren't very
good unless you have many dedicated editors.)

Now that a critical mass of people are using Chrome, I suspect that there is a
much better signal in the haystack of user behavior data than back links. A
much better algorithm in theory could be built using the actual usage patterns
of discriminating humans rather than the link landscape of the web.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
That sounds terrible - dystopian even.

I would far rather the google data be made public

------
murtali
I always felt Disqus was trying to solve the issue of comment spam.

~~~
hershel
How?

~~~
murtali
Authentication before commenting being the biggest. People have been trying to
do link spamming on comments forever. Disqus attempts to legitimize and
monetize it with their sponsored stories/links.

~~~
jtheory
Eh, all of the forum spam I get is from "users" who have actually _created
accounts_ and sometimes posted halfway legit comments (it's a music theory
forum, and they obviously don't know anything about theory, but post something
that tries to fake it) before starting to post spam.

The best solution is removing the incentive (though I've had rel="nofollow"
auto-added to all links since it was first proposed, to no avail...).

------
guard-of-terra
Meanwhile Yandex is trying to move past ranking based on incoming links.
Coming soon: search results with zero ranking weight of any links (on
commercially heavy queries, anyway).

[http://www.seroundtable.com/yandex-
links-17786.html](http://www.seroundtable.com/yandex-links-17786.html)

~~~
vdaniuk
At present moment the no-links ranking technology from Yandex is vaporware,
though I certainly think it may be better for some of the queries.

------
eevilspock
_...Google is obviously well versed in this economics stuff, that incentives
matter....If you change the incentives then you will change peoples’
behavior._

Google has a $50 billion annual revenue inventive from advertisers to not give
a shit about our privacy. There's very little incentive to protect user
privacy because people are easily tricked into believing that trading their
privacy gets them something free in return when in fact it is not free at all,
and in fact even more expensive than it would have been [1].

What is needed is a non-profit, open-source search engine. And the same for
social networking. Perhaps Wikipedia style. Let's ditch the bad incentives.

[1] No free lunch, no free web,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6624666](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6624666)

------
wslh
I would pay for a service that clean [my] phpBB forums!

~~~
derefr
I'm really surprised this doesn't exist. Moderation-as-a-Service, with a team
of well-trained subject-neutral moderators.

~~~
harvestmoon
There is such a service. You just have to look for it. I'm building a wiki, so
it is something that I could conceivably use.

------
bhartzer
Google must care enough about comment spam to clean it up because their algo
still relies too much on it. If they just ignored comment spam altogether and
their organic algorithm didn't rely on it then they wouldn't be spending time
and resources to clean it up.

