FW: Google takes on comment spam

Right, but there is more to pagerank than incoming links (though they are important). I'd like to see the stats of having google adwords on a site, the amount of people hit the site and if it raises up the ranking in any way. Either way, you get people. > All I am saying is that if I on a yahoogroup say "look at house of > fusion this really great site I know" any resulting clicks will not > count toward your page rank. Page rank will be based more on links > from web sites. Though hopefully people will be impressed and return > on their own.... so you will still benefit from the worrd of mouth, > just not in terms of google standing. No? > > Dana > > Ps -- I do think this is a good thing at the end of the day mind you > -- I am just pondering what it means. > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:53:15 -0500, Michael Dinowitz > <mdinowit@houseoffusion.com> wrote: > > Content is still content, visits are still visits and the end result > will > > still be more traffic. And this will not be adopted by all. > > > > > It probably will cut down on a certain amount of "look at this great > > > link I found" referrals. I realize that the link will still work, but > > > people do also legitimately do this and the site will no longer get > > > credit for these clicks for ranking purposes. I've seen it quite a bit > > > on the home school/parenting yahoogroups, and since yahoo is > > > participating.... > > > > > > So I am thinking that viral marketing will still work but will have > > > less effect on page rank (?) > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:25:53 -0500, Michael Dinowitz > > > <mdinowit@houseoffusion.com> wrote: > > > > Probably by script which means that the blog software has to be > > > rewritten. > > > > This is really a lot of fun due to the total amount of blog software > out > > > > there. Personally, I'd just run a standard spam filter against a > post > > > and > > > > 'flag' it as potential or actual spam based on content, links, etc. > > > Simple > > > > to do. > > > > > > > > > While I applaud this, having had to deal with a penis enlargement > > > > > spammer, my question is, well, probably stunningly simple and > > > > > something I should know.... > > > > > > > > > > The "nofollow" will not be put there by the spammers presumably > since > > > > > they want the link to be followed... so would it get there by a > script > > > > > that the blog software applies to all comments? I guess? > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:44:57 -0500, Michael Dinowitz > > > > > <mdinowit@houseoffusion.com> wrote: > > > > > > Originally posted by Kevin Graeme to the CF-Community list. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > If you're a blogger (or a blog reader), you're painfully > familiar > > > with > > > > > > people who try to raise their own websites' search engine > rankings > > > by > > > > > > submitting linked blog comments like "Visit my discount > > > > > > pharmaceuticals site." This is called comment spam, we don't > like it > > > > > > either, and we've been testing a new tag that blocks it. From > now > > > on, > > > > > > when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, > those > > > > > > links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search > > > > > > results. This isn't a negative vote for the site where the > comment > > > was > > > > > > posted; it's just a way to make sure that spammers get no > benefit > > > from > > > > > > abusing public areas like blog comments, trackbacks, and > referrer > > > > > > lists. > > > > > > http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment- > > > spam.html > > > > > > > > > > > > -Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >