<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Blogspot domains identified as fine purveyors of Spam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/</link>
	<description>A Blog about Search and Online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:17:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Blogspot domains identified as fine purveyors of Spam</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-5859</link>
		<dc:creator>robwatts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/#comment-5859</guid>
		<description>Hi John

Nice idea, good work on that, and best of luck with it too.

Seems like you are looking at a few more of those &#039;quality signals&#039; that people like Matt Cutts and Tim Maher allude to.

Just have to be careful not to throw babies out with bathwater. 

Not every good website has an SSL cert, not every good website bothers with Yellow pages or Business.com or the ODP. Much of ODP data is centuries old or has been bought out and sold on. How many sites admited to ODP have since expired and been rebought and filled with content of dubity I wonder.

Serious spammers also spend serious money too in getting to where they need to be. There are varying flavours and degrees of spam too, some of better quality than others. Its increasingly more difficult to differentiate too. Data is bought and sold and exchanged and rehashed. Spammers activiley seek out new data sources and aren&#039;t particulalry fussy what its about either. Monetisation programs like adbrite , ypn, adsense, kontera, bidvertiser etc etc all help make the enterprise a worthwhile venture too.

Don&#039;t get me wrong. I think yours is a great approach to a problem that affects us all. I think the main players in search might even look at similar signals too, or at least should be testing various filters like you describe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi John</p>
<p>Nice idea, good work on that, and best of luck with it too.</p>
<p>Seems like you are looking at a few more of those &#8216;quality signals&#8217; that people like Matt Cutts and Tim Maher allude to.</p>
<p>Just have to be careful not to throw babies out with bathwater. </p>
<p>Not every good website has an SSL cert, not every good website bothers with Yellow pages or Business.com or the ODP. Much of ODP data is centuries old or has been bought out and sold on. How many sites admited to ODP have since expired and been rebought and filled with content of dubity I wonder.</p>
<p>Serious spammers also spend serious money too in getting to where they need to be. There are varying flavours and degrees of spam too, some of better quality than others. Its increasingly more difficult to differentiate too. Data is bought and sold and exchanged and rehashed. Spammers activiley seek out new data sources and aren&#8217;t particulalry fussy what its about either. Monetisation programs like adbrite , ypn, adsense, kontera, bidvertiser etc etc all help make the enterprise a worthwhile venture too.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong. I think yours is a great approach to a problem that affects us all. I think the main players in search might even look at similar signals too, or at least should be testing various filters like you describe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Blogspot domains identified as fine purveyors of Spam</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-5836</link>
		<dc:creator>John Nagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/#comment-5836</guid>
		<description>&quot;Spam Double-Funnel: Connecting Web Spammers with Advertisers&quot; is a good paper.  It&#039;s a demonstration that search engines need to get much smarter about dealing with redirects and &quot;cloaking&quot; to figure out where links really go.  Blogspot is just a symptom of the problem.

Our system, SiteTruth, accomplishes much the same goal, but from the other direction.  We try hard to find the company behind the web page, and if we can&#039;t, we downgrade its search position in our system.  This derates most &quot;doorway&quot;, &quot;referrer&quot;, &quot;directory&quot;, and &quot;direct navigation&quot; pages.  That covers most web spam.

SiteTruth is hard on some sites, but all you have to do to get a decent SiteTruth rating is put your business name and address in a format that would work on a mailing label somewhere obvious on the site, like an &quot;about&quot; page.  Or get a good SSL cert.  Or a BBBonline membership.  Or get into Open Directory.  Or put your URL in a Yellow Pages ad.  If we can find a solid indication of legitimacy from a non-web source, we&#039;re happy.  Everybody else in search is endlessly grinding on web pages, but not looking off the web for hard data.  We do that, and it works. 

Try it at &quot;sitetruth.com&quot;.  We&#039;re in alpha test.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Spam Double-Funnel: Connecting Web Spammers with Advertisers&#8221; is a good paper.  It&#8217;s a demonstration that search engines need to get much smarter about dealing with redirects and &#8220;cloaking&#8221; to figure out where links really go.  Blogspot is just a symptom of the problem.</p>
<p>Our system, SiteTruth, accomplishes much the same goal, but from the other direction.  We try hard to find the company behind the web page, and if we can&#8217;t, we downgrade its search position in our system.  This derates most &#8220;doorway&#8221;, &#8220;referrer&#8221;, &#8220;directory&#8221;, and &#8220;direct navigation&#8221; pages.  That covers most web spam.</p>
<p>SiteTruth is hard on some sites, but all you have to do to get a decent SiteTruth rating is put your business name and address in a format that would work on a mailing label somewhere obvious on the site, like an &#8220;about&#8221; page.  Or get a good SSL cert.  Or a BBBonline membership.  Or get into Open Directory.  Or put your URL in a Yellow Pages ad.  If we can find a solid indication of legitimacy from a non-web source, we&#8217;re happy.  Everybody else in search is endlessly grinding on web pages, but not looking off the web for hard data.  We do that, and it works. </p>
<p>Try it at &#8220;sitetruth.com&#8221;.  We&#8217;re in alpha test.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Blogspot domains identified as fine purveyors of Spam</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-5426</link>
		<dc:creator>car news guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/#comment-5426</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d always worried that it was only a matter of time before blogspot blogs got ear marked as &quot;spam&quot; (whether they were or weren&#039;t) that&#039;s why I eventually took the plunge and picked up my own domains. I didn&#039;t see any point in building up a site that essentially I had no control over.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d always worried that it was only a matter of time before blogspot blogs got ear marked as &#8220;spam&#8221; (whether they were or weren&#8217;t) that&#8217;s why I eventually took the plunge and picked up my own domains. I didn&#8217;t see any point in building up a site that essentially I had no control over.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Blogspot domains identified as fine purveyors of Spam</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-4215</link>
		<dc:creator>David Bradley Blogging Tips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/#comment-4215</guid>
		<description>There are just sooooo many reasons not to be on Blogspot even if you don&#039;t fancy the complexities of Wordpress. One thing that Blogspot precludes is decent SEO-type control of your title tag and page permalinks etc, which might be deliberate on Google&#039;s part, but I doubt it. I just think they got Blogspot &quot;wrong&quot;

db</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are just sooooo many reasons not to be on Blogspot even if you don&#8217;t fancy the complexities of Wordpress. One thing that Blogspot precludes is decent SEO-type control of your title tag and page permalinks etc, which might be deliberate on Google&#8217;s part, but I doubt it. I just think they got Blogspot &#8220;wrong&#8221;</p>
<p>db</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Blogspot domains identified as fine purveyors of Spam</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-4213</link>
		<dc:creator>Seo Advice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/blogging/blogspot-domains-identified-as-fine-purveyors-of-spam/#comment-4213</guid>
		<description>Hi David,

I agree, and if it were owned by anyone other than Google then perhaps it really could be a serious problem. It&#039;s certainly illustrative of what could befall one, guilt by association bad neighbourhoods etc.

I&#039;d advise anyone to go the self hosted route, especially if they are serious about this stuff and are in it for the long haul. Just makes sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi David,</p>
<p>I agree, and if it were owned by anyone other than Google then perhaps it really could be a serious problem. It&#8217;s certainly illustrative of what could befall one, guilt by association bad neighbourhoods etc.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d advise anyone to go the self hosted route, especially if they are serious about this stuff and are in it for the long haul. Just makes sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
