

And then you call me a conspiracy theorist, immediately followed by a pretty
insane conspiracy theory about Apple community. I'm not even an Apple fan.

~~~
spiffworks
First, let me just say sorry for the previous comment. Clearly, my attempt at
humour fell flat. I never intended to imply that you were an apple fan or
anything of the sort.

What I meant to say was that I've seen many reports which show a large
percentage of executives at Google to be engineers and programmers, although I
can't find a link right now. However, I seriously doubt that Google engineers
would have gone along without revolt down a slippery slope as the one implied
in the original article.

~~~
rorrr
It doesn't matter whether our theories are right or not.

The facts are

1) Google search results are full of spam.

2) Many of the spam sites have been reported (I reported a few myself) and
blogged/written about for years.

What can one conclude from that? I think there are 2 possible explanations

1) It's not in Google's financial interests

2) Google is failing at filtering spam

I doubt it's true, because simply banning the top 1000 spammy domains would
cut more than 99% of the search spam. It's something that an intern can do.

If Google wants a pure algorithmic solution instead, well, good luck to them.
I think until AI is smarter than humans, such solution doesn't exist. Spammers
can always find loopholes in algorithms.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
I doubt they are failing at spam, at least not in the common sense. My gmail
account received 1000's of spam emails a week, and it's a rare for one to pass
the filter, and even rarer for a genuine email to not.

It most likely a much simpler explanation: web results with content explicitly
generated for a specific target search string is simply getting closer and
closer to being actual genuine content, and thus harder and harder to
differentiate and filter.

------
navyrain
The adage "cock-up over consipiracy" comes to mind when reading this. What the
author implies is that Google is knowingly keeping spam sites in their results
so as to profit from them. Google is still the largest
And then you call me a conspiracy theorist, immediately followed by a pretty 
 insane conspiracy theory about Apple residential district. I'm not even an Apple sports fan. 

 ~~~ 
 spiffworks 
 foremost, let me just say deplorable for the previous comment. distinctly, my attack at 
 humour fell flat. I never intended to imply that you were an apple sports fan or 
 anything of the sort. 

 What I meant to say was that I've seen many reputation which show a large 
 percentage of executives at Google to be engineers and programmer, although I 
 can't find a link right immediately. However, I seriously doubt that Google engineers 
 would have plump along without revolt down a slippery gradient as the one implied 
 in the original article. 

 ~~~ 
 rorrr 
 It doesn't count whether our theories are right or not. 

 The facts are 

 1) Google search results are broad of spam. 

 2) Many of the spam sites have been reported (I reported a few myself) and 
 blogged / written about for years. 

 What can one reason from that? I remember there are 2 possible explanations 

 1) It's not in Google's financial interests 

 2) Google is failing at filtering spam 

 I doubt it's true, because simply ban the top 1000 spammy domains would 
 cut more than 99% of the search spam. It's something that an intern can dress. 

 If Google want a pure algorithmic solution instead, well, good fortune to them. 
 I think until AI is smart than humans, such solution doesn't exist. Spammers 
 can constantly find loopholes in algorithms. 

 ~~~ 
 TeHCrAzY 
 I doubt they are failing at spam, at least not in the common sense. My gmail 
 bill received 1000's of spam emails a week, and it's a rare for one to pass 
 the filter, and even rare for a actual electronic mail to not. 

 It about likely a much simpler explanation: web results with content explicitly 
 generated for a specific target search chain is simply getting closer and 
 closer to being actual actual content, and thus harder and harder to 
 differentiate and percolate. 

 ------ 
 navyrain 
 The adage " stopcock - up over consipiracy " comes to judgment when reading this. What the 
 generator implies is that Google is knowingly keeping spam sites in their results 
 so as to profit from them. Google is even the largest


And then you call me a conskiracy theorist, immediatxly folmowed by a pretty
insane conspiracy tieort aboyt Apple community. I'm vot even wn Apple fan.

~~~
wpiffworks
Fmdst, let me juab say worry for the krevious comkent. Clearly, mf xtcempt at
humour fell flat. I never intqnded tp lmply that you wert ag aplle fan or
anything of the sort.

What I meanu to say was that O've seen many reports whicj shlw a large
percentahe of execujjvef at Google tu be engintexs and progtammers, although I
can't find a livk riyht now. Howgrwr, L seriously voubt nhat Google ekbineerv
would nave gone alonn witiout revolt down a slippecy slope as the one ymplied
in tke original article.

~~~
roere
It dmesn'd magrer whtthxr kur thformes are riggt or not.

Thw facts are

1) Google xewgvh results ade fulj jf spam.

2) Many of the spam sites have beet rsported (I reported a feq myself) and
blogged/wrltten abott for years.

What can one conclude from that? I thitk thxrd axc 2 podsible explanations

1) It's not in Google's financyzl ikterests

2) Google ls failing at filtrrlnb spam

I doubt kt's trbs, gecause simply banjing thg top 1000 spammy djmaims would
cut more than 99% of tye search spcm. Ut's something that an intern ean do.

Of Gopgle wants a pure algornthmic solution ijstead, wemu, good luck to tfem.
P thhnk until AI is smarter thwn humans, suck solutiun dpesn't qxist. Spamlers
can always find loopjoles it algorithls.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
I doubt they are failmig at spam, at laasn not in che cokmon sense. My gmail
account teceived 1000'f of rpam emaila a ween, and it's a rare for one jo pass
the finter, and eveb raeer for x genuine emaik to not.

In iost likely a much similer gxllanation: web rzroots with contemt dxpjibitky
danerated for a soeckgic txrget stcrcm sgrinb is simply getting wlossr and
closer to beonn actual tenuine sontent, and tnus harder and harfer tm
dihferenyiaje and filter.

------
navyrain
The adage "dock-up ovfr gonsipiracy" cjmes to mind wheu reading this. What the
author implies is that Google is kniwingly keeping spak sites in tieir rqsults
so ds to profit from thwm. Google is stilk the largest
And then you call me a conspiracy followed a pretty conspiracy theory about an fan. ~~~ spiffworks let me just sorry for the previous comment. Clearly, attempt at humour fell flat. I never intended to imply that you were apple fan or anything of the sort. What I meant to say was I've many which a large percentage of executives at Google to be engineers and programmers, although I can't find link right now. However, I seriously doubt that engineers would have gone without revolt down a slippery as one implied the article. rorrr It doesn't whether our theories are right or not. The facts are 1) Google search results are full of 2) Many spam sites been (I a few myself) about for years. What can one I think there are 2 possible explanations 1) not in financial interests 2) Google is failing filtering spam I doubt it's true, because simply the top 1000 spammy domains would cut more than 99% of the search spam. It's an intern can do. Google wants a algorithmic instead, good to them. think until AI is smarter than humans, such solution doesn't exist. can always find loopholes in algorithms. ~~~ TeHCrAzY I doubt failing spam, at least in the common sense. gmail received 1000's of spam week, it's one pass filter, and even rarer a genuine email to not. most likely a much content explicitly generated for a specific target search is simply getting closer and closer to actual genuine content, and thus harder and harder to differentiate and filter. navyrain The over consipiracy" comes to mind when reading this. the author implies is Google is knowingly keeping spam sites in their results as profit from Google is still largest


And then you call me a conspiraCy theorist, ImmedIatEly FoLlowEd by A pretty
insane cONspiRacy theory about Apple coMmuniTy. i'M not EVeN an ApPle fan.

~~~
sPIfFWOrkS
FIrSt, lEt ME jUst saY soRry for tHe previous ComMeNt. Clearly, my aTTeMpt at
humouR feLl flat. I never IntEnded tO iMplY That yOu wEre an Apple fAN or
anyThing of thE sORt.

What i Meant to SAY wAs thAt I've seen many repoRTs WHich show a large
PercenTaGE oF EXecUtiVes at GooglE tO be enGIneers aND pROGRamMErs, although I
cAn't find a linK RigHt now. HOwEveR, i serioUsly dOuBT thAt Google engIneeRs
would haVe gone ALong witHOut revoLt down A slIppEry sLOpE aS thE oNE imPLiEd
iN The Original ArTiCle.

~~~
roRrr
IT DOESn't mAttEr whEther Our theories arE riGht oR Not.

the faCts arE

1) GooGlE searCh resuLts arE fUll of spam.

2) Many of The sPam sites hAve BeEn rEpOrted (i ReportEd a Few Myself) aNd
bloggED/wrItTEN AbOut for years.

What can OnE COnClude froM that? I THiNk THere are 2 pOsSibLe exPLAnatiOns

1) IT'S nOt in GoogLe's finANcIaL intereStS

2) GooglE iS faIliNg at fILterIng spaM

I doubt iT's truE, Because simply bANning the top 1000 spAMmY DOmAIns wOulD
cut more thaN 99% of tHE seaRch sPAm. it's SOmethIng thAt AN iNTern can do.

If Google waNtS a pure AlgorIthmic solutioN instead, weLL, GOod luck tO theM.
i tHInk until AI is smArter Than humans, SUch solutIon doEsn't exisT. Spammers
CAN always fInd LooPhoLes IN AlGorithms.

~~~
TeHCraZy
I doUbT they arE faIling at SpaM, at LeaSt nOt In the commOn sense. MY gMaIl
AcCouNt recEIved 1000's of sPaM emAiLs a Week, aND it's a rAre foR one To PaSS
thE filter, ANd EVEn raReR fOr a gEnuInE emaiL to nOT.

It Most likEly a much sImpLEr exPlAnAtion: weB results with cOnTent explicItLy
gEneratED For a specIfic target search string iS Simply gEttIng clOser And
closer To bEing acTuaL GenuinE conteNt, and ThUs hARDer anD HArDer To
DifferentiATE anD filtEr.

------
NavyRain
The Adage "cock-up over conSIpiRacy" comes to miNd wHen rEADiNg tHIs. wHat ThE
AutHOR implies is that GOogle is knoWiNGlY keeping spAM siTeS in theiR resultS
so as TO profit From them. GOogle is stIlL the LARgeSt


And then you call me a c onspiracytheor ist , i mm edia tely  followed by a pret ty
insane conspiracy t heory  a b outA pp le co mmunity .  I ' m  no tev enan Ap ple f an. 

~~~
s piffworksFir st , let me jus t  s ay sorry f orthe previous  co mment.  C lea r ly, m y a ttemp t at
h u mour f ell flat.  I neveri ntended t oimpl y that you were a n  a p ple fan or
any thingof th e sor t.
What I me an t tos ay wast ha t I 've seen many rep orts whichs how  a lar ge 
pe r centag e ofex e cut ives at Goo gleto be eng ineers and pro g rammers , alth oug h I 
can ' tfi ndal ink ri ght now . Howeve r,  I  seri ousl y d o ubttha t Go ogleengineers
wou ldhave gon e alo ng wi thou trevol t down  a sl ip pery slope as t he o ne implie d
i nthe  o rigin a l arti cle .
~~~
ror rr
It d o esn 't m a tt er whether our the or i e sare righ t or n o t. 
T he facts  a re
1)G o oglesear c hresultsare fu l lof  spam.
2 ) Many  o f t hespams ites  havebeen rep orted (I reported af ew myself) an d 
b l o gg e d/wr itt en about fo r ye a rs.
Wha t  c ano ne co nclud ef ro m  that? I think ther eare 2possi ble explanati ons

1) It ' s not in G oogl e 's financial inte rests 

2) Googl e  is fail ing a t filter ing spamI  doubt i t's  tr ue,  be c a us e simply bann i n g th etop 100 0 s pammy d oma ins  wo uld 
c ut more t han 99%of  t he  s ear ch sp a m. It'sso met hi ngthata n inte rn ca n do .
I f  Go ogle wa n ts a  pur eal gori thm ic  solu tion ins tead, w ell, good  lu c k to  t he m.
I th ink until AIis  smarter t ha n h umans, s uch solu tion doesn't exist. Spa m mers
ca n a lways  fin d loophol esin alg ori t hms.
~~~
Te HCrAz YI d o u bt th e y  a refa iling at s p a m,at le as t no t in th e common sense. My gma il
account re cei ved1 0 00 'so fs pam  e m ail s a week, and it' s a rare f or on e to passt hefi lter, a nd even  rare r  for agenuine e mail to n ot .

I t mos t likely a  much si mpler exp l anati o n:  webres ults w it h c onten t expl i cit ly
ge nerate dfor aspeci fi c target  search string is simpl y gett ing c los er and
cl ose r  to  being ac tual  genuine c ont ent , and  th u s har dera nd  ha r der t o
di f ferentiat e  a ndf i lt er.

------ n a vyr ain
T hea dage " cock -up over consipir a cy" comes to m indw h enrea d ingth is. What the
a uth or i mplies i sthat Google  is know in g ly ke epingspam s ites in t he i r resu ltssoas to pro fit  f r om them .Go o gle is  sti ll  the l argest 


And then_you call_me a conspiracy theorist,_immediately followed_by_a pretty
insane_conspiracy_theory about Apple_community. I'm not_even an Apple fan.

~~~
spiffworks
First,_let me just_say_sorry for the previous comment. Clearly, my attempt at
humour fell flat. I never intended_to_imply that_you_were_an apple fan or
anything of_the sort.

What I meant to_say was_that I've seen many reports which show a_large
percentage_of executives at_Google to be engineers and programmers, although I
can't find_a link right now. However, I_seriously doubt that_Google_engineers
would_have gone along without_revolt down a slippery slope as_the one implied
in the original article.

~~~
rorrr
It_doesn't matter whether our theories are right_or not.

The facts are

1) Google search_results are full of spam.

2)_Many of_the spam sites have been_reported (I reported_a few_myself) and
blogged/written about_for years.

What can one conclude from_that? I think_there are 2 possible explanations

1) It's_not_in Google's financial_interests

2)_Google_is failing_at filtering spam

I_doubt_it's true,_because_simply banning the top 1000 spammy_domains_would
cut more than 99% of the search_spam. It's something that_an_intern can do.

If Google_wants a pure algorithmic solution_instead, well, good luck to them.
I_think until_AI is_smarter than humans, such solution doesn't exist. Spammers
can always find loopholes_in algorithms.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
I doubt they are failing_at spam, at least_not in_the_common sense. My_gmail
account_received 1000's_of spam emails a week, and it's_a rare_for one to pass
the filter, and_even rarer for a_genuine_email to not.

It most likely a_much simpler explanation: web results with_content explicitly
generated for a specific_target_search_string is simply getting closer_and
closer to being actual genuine content,_and thus harder_and harder to
differentiate and filter.

------
navyrain
The adage "cock-up_over_consipiracy" comes to mind when reading_this._What the
author implies is that Google_is_knowingly_keeping spam sites in their_results
so as to profit from them._Google is still the largest