Talk:Spamdexing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
great page! may need a little more oraganization though
Google Bombing was described incorrectly, fixed!
I would like this page to become the main page for black-hat techniques, while white-hat techniques should be in search engine optimization. We still have lots of work to do in this page. ChaTo 18:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Wiki spam as a seperate page
the term Wiki_spam automatically redirected to this page, which had no entry for that term! I added one, but it seems to me there should be a seperate page for that term. I don't know how to make the automatic forward stop.
- At the top of the page, if there is a redirect there is a small link that says "(Redirected from Wiki spam)" (but it is not an external link like this is... Also, next time sign your posts with "~~~~". PaulC/T+ 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move Spamdexing to Black Hat SEO
I agree, I vote that we move this page to Black Hat SEO as Spamdexing could be considered equivalent to Black Hat or a subset of it, but I think Black Hat SEO is the more mainstream term. I would have White Hat SEO redirect to the main SEO article. LinguistAtLarge 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. I suggest this page to be called "Spamdexing", and the other page "Search engine optimization". "Black hat SEO" and "White hat SEO" should be redirects. ChaTo 08:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If this article is going to be taken seriously, at least put it in it's proper place. "SEO" encompasses both "Black-hat" and "White-hat" tactics, called "Black-hat SEO" and "White-hat SEO" respectively. "Spamdexing", at best, is a subset of "Black-hat SEO"... at worst it's yet another fictious hot-word to describe the practice of "search engine spamming" (which itself is a subset of "black-hat seo"), which by the very definition of spamming is not actually possible given the current mechanism by which web sites are spidered and indexed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethicalmarvin (talk • contribs) .
This article comes close to being WP:AfD fodder. It's a neologism and it fails the Google test with almost all of the references to it being links to this article in Wikipedia or it's clones and mirrors or articles attempting to define the word. I didn't see any pages that happened to use the word in the course of talking about the subject in general. For this reason, I strongly recommend that this material be merged into one of those other articles before someone decides to delete the entire thing. SteveBaker 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sybil Attack
Some language was redundant. Also, I thought linking to Sibil herself was more appropriate than the generalized personality disorder entry.
should somebody add an entry relating to the nigerian scammers who use guest books to harvest emails? some people may wonder why guyman@mugu.com has left an entry only stating the words "guyman keep off OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO".
[edit] Google Bowling
Anyone know enough to write an article on Google Bowling? 30,000 results on google. [1] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting article but is there any other evidence that this problem really exists? If I saw a real example, and a blow-by-blow account of how someone used/fell victim to this technique, I might be more convinced, but I think a lot of SEO experts try to imagine how google algorithms work, and then imagine problems with it, all based on speculation. Maybe writing articles in an autoritative tone like this, is a form of pagerank gaming in itself! -- Nojer2 11:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link spam on Wikipedia
Have a look at what a Wikipedia editor contributed from 2006-06-29 to 2006-07-04. It includes 71 new pages which are nothing but redirects to 2 existing pages. Surely this is link spam! What is Wikipedia policy on that? Rwxrwxrwx 17:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those links have been removed. Rwxrwxrwx 17:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spam with just numbers
Anybody know what the point of this is? I see this on a number of wikis I work on from time to time and I don't know what it's trying to do. I feel like I should know though. -_- Here's an example: http://wiki.galbijim.com/Help:Writing_pages_on_this_wiki?curid=1297&diff=15434&oldid=15433&rcid=5261
What kind of benefit could those numbers provide to a spammer? They're always different. Mithridates 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Historical claims by James Lick
I recently added a claim that the first documented case of Spamdexing occurred on September 5, 1995 and included a link to Refer Madness: An Early History of Spamdexing as a citation. I also added a link to the same at the end of the external links section.
Both were removed as being 'unreliable sources'. I can understand why a cursory examination of the link might give that impression, however the article does contain many confirmed third party references from USENET and the Wayback Machine dating from 1995 through 1997 which support the claims of the article. The article also contains my unedited logs for all of 1995 as well as explanations of why I chose to claim September 5, 1995 as the date of invention and the log evidence to support this.
I have reviewed the Wikipedia entry describing reliable sources and refer to the terminology used there. I am a self-published non-academic primary source. I claim the article has Attributability, Expertise, Corroboration, Age (based on an earlier account from 1996), and Persistence. The weakest part of my claim is in terms of 'Bias' which I am careful to point out and which is balanced by third party historical references backing my claims. My claim to Expertise is based on publications on the topic of spam and abuse for the APCAUCE, APRICOT and SANOG conferences.
In my original citation in this Wikipedia entry I was careful to describe it as the first 'documented' case of spamdexing which I believe is strictly true, as I am not aware of any earlier cases which have been documented. However, I will concede that this claim may still be considered controversial.
I believe that my account otherwise qualifies as a reliable source of the early history of Spamdexing. Therefore I am proposing to add it as an external link as an early history of Spamdexing without additional claims. If the Wikipedia moderators choose to remove the link again then this discussion page will suffice.
--Jlick 05:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not only a cursory glance, but any rigorous approach to sourcing would indicate that an article by Jlick as a source for claims of being first by Jlick is not appropriately reliable. Appropriate citations would be of respected independent researchers stating that it was the first documented case having looked carefully at everything available. Your selection of entries from usenet, the wayback machine or other resources published on your own website are not equivalent to this. Please do not add this back without better sources. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
