Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Wordpress Banned by Google for Spamming

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Mar 31, 2005 02:40 PM
from the there-be-scammers-everywhere dept.
The Real Nick W writes "Wordpress, an incredibly popular Open Source Blogging system was found to be spamming google by inserting hidden links to junk content on high paying Adsense keywords such as mesothelioma and debt consolidation. Following Threadwatch picking up the story an anonymous Google rep appeared in the original thread admonishing bloggers not to use sneaky tactics to rank highly for "duplicate content" such as the 100,000 hidden articles on the Wordpress site. The articles have now dissapeared from Google and it remains to be seen whether Google will ban Wordpress outright as they tend to do when SEO's and web dev's pull these kinds of stunts."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by feloneous cat (564318) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:42PM (#12103006)
    ... googling something will turn up nothing. But it will do it in 0.073 seconds!
  • Heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Neil Blender (555885) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:42PM (#12103008)
    I search google for mesothelioma about once a week (from various proxies) and click on an adwords ad just to screw some lawyer out of $40 (which is what a click on that keyword costs.)
  • by chris09876 (643289) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:43PM (#12103012)
    Although it's good that Google's taking a step in the right direction by trying to keep their index clean, there are lots of sites who try to spam the index. SEO is a huge 'industry'. Cracking down on some of the big perpetrators is a good start, but more needs to be done if Google wants to maintain (and even improve) the quality of their searches.
  • SEO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chiapetofborg (726868) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:43PM (#12103024) Homepage
    I work for an SEO company, and we hear about all the sneaky tricks, but it isn't all that hard to be optimized while not pulling sneaky attacks. Google has a very complicated algorithm that take a lot of things into effect. The reason that they rank pages that have certain characteristics, is because those pages can actually be good, they don't have to be sneaky. A very closely monitored network of domains, can get a very high page rank. One need not revert to sneaky tactics to do well.
    • Re:SEO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rjelks (635588) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:02PM (#12103237) Homepage
      "One need not revert to sneaky tactics to do well."

      If Google gives higher rankings to sites that have more links pointed at them, would you consider link exchange programs sneaky? For instance, lots of websites link to slashdot.org, but I doubt that CowboyNeil has a SEO company getting reciprocal links for /. I'm really not trying to flame, but I'd like to understand the perspective from the SEO's.

      Are link exchanges just another example of exploiting a flaw in google?
    • by billstewart (78916) on Thursday March 31 2005, @05:31PM (#12104947) Journal
      Google Pagerank's objective is to use robots to guess which pages will be interesting to humans, and present the interesting pages first and the boring ones later. There are three ways an SEO can help you with this:
      • Tell you to write content that's actually interesting to humans. (Editors do this professionally, and pagerank originally attempted to do this by guessing that if people go to the effort to put links on their web pages then the targets are probably interesting to those people.)
      • Make sure that your interesting content is presented in a way that robots can find it. (An FAQ that tells you to put your keywords in titles and META tags can do this, or an HTML editor tool can do it automagically, but some people do need to pay someone else to RTFM for them, and theoretically an SEO can make money doing it.)
      • Lie to the robots so they guess that your customers' actually-uninteresting content is probably interesting, so the robots show the humans the boring SEO-assisted pages first instead of the actually interesting pages. This lying is the main business that effective SEOs really engage in. (Ineffective SEOs are in the business of lying to their customers about being effective SEOs, but they and their customers deserve each other and sort of by definition don't have a high enough pagerank to worry about.)
        • "Sneaky attacks" are SEO lies.
        • "A very closely monitored network of domains" is SEO lying too.
        • Hijacking blog comment services is really annoying SEO lying.
        • Robogenerating lots of pages with lots of popular search keywords, especially if you're building them into URL names, is SEO lying.
        • Robogenerating them without actually storing them anywhere might be technically interesting SEO lying, though disk space is so cheap these days that it might not be necessary.
        • Hijacking real pages using 302-Redirect attacks is technically interesting for about 15 minutes, but is really nasty spammer lying.
      Googlebombing by using sneaky techniques to promote your "403 Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Found" and "Miserable Failure"->"whitehouse.gov" pages was technically similar to SEO lying - but it was clever and amusing metacontent, and deserved its 15 minutes of fame, and watching the sleazy Republicans reply in kind was amusing too, but it's Been Done Now.
  • Google (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Schezar (249629) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:44PM (#12103028) Homepage Journal
    This is why I love Google. They approach problems in an intelligent manner.

    Problem: Spammers are very obviously trying to muck with our results.

    Solution: Block said spammers.

    The only problem is that it's hard to notice all but the most egregious offenders.

    I've love Google to add a link to the standard search results. Something like "Report Spam." If enough (100k, a million, whatever) unique people/IPs reported a site or result, it would be flagged for human review.
    • you would shortly have SEDO (search engine de-optimizer) specialists who charge you to sic their botnets on your competition... no thanks.
    • Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alatesystems (51331) <chris.talkingtoad@com> on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:53PM (#12103144) Homepage Journal
      The only problem is that it's hard to notice all but the most egregious offenders.
      Except when it's posted on Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] for all the geeks in the world, including Google employees, to see.

      I've love Google to add a link to the standard search results. Something like "Report Spam." If enough (100k, a million, whatever) unique people/IPs reported a site or result, it would be flagged for human review.
      That has to be the most insightful thing I have EVER read in a slashdot comment. You should suggest it via the google suggest page. It sounds like a great idea to use the most awesome pattern matching machine(the human mind). I'm sure there are more than enough people like you and I that can tell just from the description it's a google-attacking spam page that would flag it.

      In short, mod parent up.
    • Google Spam Report (Score:5, Informative)

      by frankie (91710) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:08PM (#12103310) Journal
      You mean like the Google SpamReport page [google.com]? It exists.

      They used to link to it at the bottom of some (random?) search result pages, but I haven't seen it posted publically in a while. Perhaps it didn't actually work as well as you or they hope it would.
  • Next ban eBay! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by n1ywb (555767) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:59PM (#12103203) Homepage Journal
    Speaking of google adwords spammers, eBay has got to be the worst. Every other search I do I get some generic and irrelevant eBay ad with an incomplete sentence containing one of my keywords.
    • by bigtallmofo (695287) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:11PM (#12103342)
      My favorite one during the past presidential election was to search for "vote". Along the side was EBay's ad with the headline "Votes for sale!"

      It seems that's what they do - whatever you search for, they put "for sale" on the tail end of it and hope you click on it.
    • Re:Next ban eBay! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dalroth (85450) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:20PM (#12103442) Homepage Journal
      Clean up your google searches!

      Every time you do a search on google, add the following:

      -amazon -google -search -ebay

      You'd be amazed at how much cleaner the search becomes! :)

      Bryan
  • ...one option to check out is http://b2evolution.net [b2evolution.net]. Open Sourced, PHP and MySQL based. I've been using it for three months.

    It's flexible, and I like it. You might too.

  • by Dethboy (136650) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:06PM (#12103289) Homepage
    Reaction...

    Go here: http://planet.wordpress.org/ [wordpress.org]

    Read. Maybe read it again if yer slow. Sounds like the guy was simply trying to raise a few bucks to support what is IMO one of the best blogging apps out there.
    • by geoffspear (692508) * on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:12PM (#12103352) Homepage
      Quite frankly, I don't care if a spammer is doing it to support his development of a blogging app, his crack habit, or a nearly-bankrupt orphanage.
    • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:17PM (#12103409)
      So spamming and trashing search engines is OK if you think it is a good cause?
        • Dictate? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AtariAmarok (451306) on Thursday March 31 2005, @04:16PM (#12104159)
          "Does Google now dictate the content of other people's webservers as a condition of their being indexed?"

          Google can't dictate content except on its own sites (google, froogle, etc), and they certainly are not doing it here. However they are perfectly free to leave junk sites out of their index. Google exercising freedom over its own index is not censorship nor is it dictating the content of other's sites.

      • Back when unsolicited bulk email started, people said "that's not spam! Spam is only on usenet! We have to come up with a new word for this!"

        I said then, and I say now, hogwash.

        Any advertising by flooding a common communication channel can meaningfully be described as spam, whether it's Usenet, email, IM, Text messages, or search engine spamming. There's no point to trying to draw a magic circle around part of the problem and pointing outside and saying "that's not really spam".
  • by Rinisari (521266) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:09PM (#12103324) Homepage Journal
    Blogger [blogger.com] is [blogspot.com] full [blogspot.com] of [blogspot.com] this [blogspot.com] shit [blogspot.com], too [blogspot.com].

    Just keep hitting "Next Blog" and you'll find a ton of blogs set up for advertising, just like those.
    • by dr.badass (25287) on Thursday March 31 2005, @04:39PM (#12104421) Homepage
      The difference being that Blogger's spam isn't created by the people that run Blogger.

      The uproar is over the fact that the lead developer and site maintainer of Wordpress was responsible for hosting the spammy pages. Even the page for donations has the hidden links. [wordpress.org]

      The stated reason for this is to cover his costs and hire a full-time developer, but this raises a lot of questions about the need to do so -- What exactly are those costs? And is it really worth hiring a full-timer if it has to be funded with spam?

      It doesn't help his case that he's presently on vacation in Italy [photomatt.net].

      (I'm not trying to bash him personally -- just trying to clarify the issue for those that don't understand.)
  • About time dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onyxruby (118189) <(ten.tsacmoc) (ta) (yburxyno)> on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:11PM (#12103332) Homepage
    If Google would do this kind of thing much more often, it's results would stop becoming watered down. They should make their policy simple. Googlebomb google and stop getting linked from Google. After a few businesses get nailed and put out to pasture the rest will learn and their results will once more become relevant.
  • by imsabbel (611519) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:13PM (#12103364)
    just now from their frontpage:
    <div style="text-indent: -9000px; overflow: hidden;">
    <p>Sponsored <a href="/articles/articles.xml">Articles</a> on <a href="/articles/credit.htm">Credit</a>, <a href="/articles/health-care.htm">Health</a>, <a href="/articles/insurance.htm">Insurance</a>, <a href="/articles/home-business.htm">Home Business</a>, <a href="/articles/home-buying.htm">Home Buying</a> and <a href="/articles/web-hosting.htm">Web Hosting</a></p>
    </div>
    • by greed (112493) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:43PM (#12103738)

      What on Earth does an outdent of 9000 pixels, and setting the overflow to "hidden" mean, EXCEPT that they are trying to hide it?

      After all, very few of us browse the Web by reading the raw HTML and JavaScript. I find all the bad HTML code is really bad for my brain.

  • what a shame (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hallow (2706) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:15PM (#12103382) Homepage
    First they don't tell anybody about it. Then they stop people from talking about it.

    Stuff like this is just sleazy, and calls into question the character of the devs and site admins. Either that, or it's just a really stupid, really immature move.

    I wonder if they've realized they've just upset a lot of users, who are now wondering if they can trust the devs and the software they produce anymore. I wonder if they even care.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:23PM (#12103470)
    What happened: Photomatt, the guy who pretty much calls the shots when it comes to WordPress, was paid by a company called Hot Nacho to put up 100,000+ "articles" at WordPress.org. The point of these articles is to help Hot Nacho game Google. Furthermore, WordPress.org used a CSS trick putting links to the articles at -9000pixels on the WordPress home page. This is called "cloaking" and is explicitly forbidden by Google.

    Why this is bad: WordPress is an open source piece of software. It's okay for the people running it to try to make money off it, either by asking for donations or selling t-shirts or anything else they can think of (www.textdrive.com comes to mind), but to knowingly break Google's rules and to receive money from a company whose practices many would consider shady without any feedback from the WP community is just a damn shame. A lot of people don't care and think everyone is being too critical of WordPress. They think asking for "transparency" in an operation like WP is stupid. Well yes, and no.

    A lot of people have given a lot of time to WP. Did they have any say in this? From what I've read, they didn't. So this is one person taking the ball and running with it...he didn't ask if it was a good idea, he didn't ask for alternative ideas, he just decided that he knew what was best for the community and WordPress. Well, he didn't. Take a look at Wikimedia [wikimedia.org]. When they have a donation drive, you know exactly how much money they get and where it's going. You can find out about the drive in advance, and read about it afterwards. What about WordPress? Just 100k+ articles popping up without a word until after they are discovered...

    WordPress has made quite a name for itself, and is a great example of open source software in action. But this incident is a blight on the community. People will see this, not know all the facts, and make their own interpretations and ideas. Some will distort this to help their own FUD..."Why contribute to projects who are just going to try and profit off your code in any way they can?" Matt sounds like a great guy, and seems to have the purest of intentions, but not much good can come of a decision like this. Everyone is watching right now, and it's mistakes like this that open source could really do without.
  • by mcguyver (589810) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:27PM (#12103546)
    Built-for-adsense-sites have been becoming more and more popular over the past two years. It's refreshing to finally see google actively go after these sites:

    built for adsense sites [google.com]

    This would be a non-issue if the Google search engine and Google Adsense program were not part of the same company. Or if the built-for-adsense website were not using Adsense. It's strange that someone would put so much work into creating these spammy sites then overlook something so obvious. You are putting your fate into the hands of Google, the judge and jury, when you rely on both Google as a search engine and Google as your ad network. I doubt wordpress would get noticed for spam if they were using another contextual ad network to monetize traffic or another form of online advertising.
  • by kiwidefunkt (855968) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:29PM (#12103568) Homepage
    I'm a wordpress user. I didn't see any "Wordpress needs your help, and $5!" text on the site lately. Maybe I missed it? I haven't donated to wordpress because there are a thousand open source projects out there and it's not so easy to decide where to send your hard earned, free software supporting cash. But if I saw wordpress was in trouble, it'd make that decision a lot easier. There's no way they exhausted all other options before dipping into the Google-TOS-defying low they've reached. Oh well. Live and learn. Nothing gold can stay.
  • by Clueless Moron (548336) on Thursday March 31 2005, @04:10PM (#12104057)
    SE"O"s do NOT optimize search engines; they simply attempt to make their paying clients appear higher in the list, no matter how shoddy or irrelevant their product is, by trying to fool and abuse the page ranking algorithms.

    It'd be more accurate to call them "Search Engine Spammers", because that's exactly what they do.

  • by Linuxathome (242573) on Thursday March 31 2005, @04:13PM (#12104098) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I don't care about the fact that Matt wants to make money from the work he did for wordpress. I'm more concerned over the fact that he's engaging in something that I wouldn't do myself -- that is, stacking his site with keywords that pay disproportionately more than other adsense keywords.

    I'm willing to look past what Matt does because he's essentially allowing another service (Hot Nacho) usurp his pagerank and I have a feeling he's going to drop Hot Nacho, but I'm having a harder time forgiving people like Chris Pirillo [pirillo.com] who promotes nonsense such as this guy's scheme [adsense-secrets.com] to get more money from adsense. It sounds too much like the get rich quick real estate schemes of the late night infomercials. Everyone, please! If you use adsense then live by the adage, if it sounds too good to be true, then most likely it is. Don't ruin it for the rest of us by doing this grey area shit. We all will lose out! Sure the tricks may work in your favor in the here and now (like a pyramid scheme), but at who's cost in the long run? Sites who put up legit information about a certain adword will be sideswiped by sites who cheat. It's not fair. If google can't fix the cheats, they'll just yank it for everyone across the board.

    Additionally, by tolerating behavior such as this, we're opening the door for other sites to steal legit material written by those who've poured too much research and time in each article. Play by the rules and everyone will be happy. If you're a leecher, hoarder, or just plain criminal, I wish you the worst case of hemorrhoids, dysentery, and cholera combined.
    • One word... (Score:4, Informative)

      by tag (22464) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:43PM (#12103015) Homepage
      lawyers.
    • Re:Er... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Juggle (9908) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:43PM (#12103018) Homepage
      Two words - Asbestos lawsuits.

      • Re:Er... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by The Jonas (623192) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:58PM (#12103197)
        True. A couple of years ago books with commercial and government applications and recommendation for asbestos use were selling for upwards of $2000.00 on eBay. Here [ebay.com] is another example of some of the continued interest in collecting evidence in these lawsuits. One of the better selling books back then was "Naval Machinery [ebay.com]" which detailed the use of asbestos in US battleships, etc.

        An ebay search for "asbestos" sometimes yields some surprising results.
          • Re:Er... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ergo98 (9391) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:12PM (#12103351) Homepage Journal
            My father worked for a couple of decades for Grace [grace.com] in a processing plant in St. Thomas, ON., and of course in his mid-50s he developed, and passed away from, a quick spreading lung cancer caused by asbestos.

            Of course the cause was the heavily laced vermiculite (I remember hopping in big bins full of the stuff when I was a kid. It was a really neat spongy stuff that looked really interesting [google.ca]) that Grace was processing at the St. Thomas plant, and they knew for many years that it was packed full of asbestos but decided that lawsuits due to death and injuries were less costly than cutting off the asbestos lined mine.

            Anyways, a lot of executives at Grace should have gone to jail for gross negligence causing death, but of course they didn't. As it stands we never did sue Grace, as that sort of case is much less common here in Canada, but I'm sure my father wasn't the only victim.
    • Re:Er... (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheFlyingGoat (161967) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:44PM (#12103027) Homepage Journal
      Because asbestos exposure eventually causes mesothelioma, and lawyers are all about suing in asbestos cases lately. There might be other reasons, but that's the first one I thought of.
      • Re:Er... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by imsabbel (611519) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:05PM (#12103280)
        Well, the other reason would be: Very high signal/noise ratio.

        People dont search for a word like"mesothelioma" just for fun, so its very likely to get "useful" hits.
    • Re:Er... (Score:5, Informative)

      by freitasm (444970) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:44PM (#12103030)
      Lawyers make so much money in lawsuits that they are willing to pay the most for each click on ads with this word.

      There are rummours these are one of the highest paying keywords around.

      Some people will make anything to have these ads on their pages - even use hidden text to try and catch the Google bot attention. This is the "spamming" in the article.
    • Oh, crap!!! (Score:5, Funny)

      by feloneous cat (564318) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:44PM (#12103034)
      I just ordered mesothelioma from a Greek diner!
    • Re:Blogger.com (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:51PM (#12103117)
      It isn't blog spam. It spam hidden elsewhere on the wordpress site that's the problem. Read the article!

      Spammers are paying the wordpress site to host bogus articles on the site. Since the blogs of people that use the wordpress software package link to the wordpress site, the wordpress site is ranked as an authoritative site. This lets the spammers get their rankings on Google boosted because wordpress links to them in the bogus spam articles.

      It has NOTHING to do with what people are blogging about.
    • Re:Blogger.com (Score:5, Informative)

      by Raven15 (152175) on Thursday March 31 2005, @02:53PM (#12103137)
      The issue here isn't what individuals are putting on their pages, it's that Wordpress put a bunch of invisible links on it's front page. Because Wordpress has a high Google rating, this boosted the Google rating for the links. Obviously that's in violation of Google's terms.
      • Re:Fork the bastards (Score:4, Informative)

        by zxSpectrum (129457) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:07PM (#12103300) Homepage Journal
        Indirectly, the Wordpress installs are being used to spam Google. Joe Blogger's site has pagerank. Joe Blogger has Wordpress installed. Wordpress installs, by default link to the Wordpress.org site. Joe blogger's site passes pagerank to Wordpress. Wordpress hosts spam.
      • What right does google have to remove them when wordpress hasnt signed any agreement with google.

        Google hasn't signed a contract with WordPress, either. It's their right to lay out ground rules and ban anyone who doesn't follow them.

        Newsflash: Google can do what they want.
      • by PaxTech (103481) on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:17PM (#12103416) Homepage
        What right does Wordpress have to be listed in Google's results at all? Google is in the business of providing accurate search results, if someone's playing tricks to direct results to something less accurate, Google has the right to "fix" things.

        After all, if every google search just led to a bunch of spam pages, Google itself would cease to be very useful.

      • by geoffspear (692508) * on Thursday March 31 2005, @03:20PM (#12103438) Homepage
        What right do you have to have a website that doesn't link to my site? I never agreed to any Terms of Service with you that say you can not link to me.

        Google doesn't owe them anything. They're indexing them for free, and they can stop indexing them whenever they want if they don't meet Google's criteria for indexing.