Sebastian’s Pamphlets

Your search for prescription free Viagra® ends here.

Pfizer just released the amazingly easy-to-understand Ultimate VIAGRA® DIY Guide (PDF, 30 illustrated pages). Look at the simple molecule on page one, cloning it is a breeze. Go brew your own! With a little help from your local alchemist, er, pharmacist, you can make even pills and paint them blue. Next get an empty packet and glue, then print out six copies of the image above. As a seasoned DIY professional you’ll certainly manage to fake Pfizer’s pill box. Congrats. You’re awesome.

As for the promise of “no shipping costs”: Well, I don’t ship Viagra®, so it wouldn’t be fair to charge you with UPS costs * 7.5 (I’m such an angel sometimes!), don’t you agree?

By the way, if the above said sounds too complicated, there’s a shortcut: click on the image.

Seriously

Barry’s post about Free Viagra® Links inspired this pamphlet. Google’s [buy viagra online] SERP still is a mess. Obviously, Google doesn’t care about link spam influencing search results for money terms. Even low-life links can boost crap to the first SERP.

About time to change that!

Since Google doesn’t tidy up its Viagra® SERPs, lets help ourselves to the search quality we deserve. Most probably you’ve spotted that this pamphlet was created to funnel (search) traffic to Pfizer’s Viagra® outlet. Therefore, if you’re into search quality, put up some links to this post. I promise there’s no better way magic to create clean Viagra® SERPs at Google.

<a href="http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/buy-prescription-free-viagra-online-no-shipping-costs/" rel="honest recommendation">Buy Cheap Viagra® Online</a>

Dear reader, please copy the HTML code above and paste it onto your signatures, blog posts, social media profiles … everywhere. If you keep your links up forever, Google’s SERPs will remain useful until the Internet vanishes.

Disclaimer: No, I can’t even spiel ‘linkbait’. And no, I don’t promise not to replace this page with a sales pitch for some fake-ish Viagra®-clone once your link juice gained yours truly a top spot on said SERP. D’oh!

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

The moment you’ve read Google’s announcement and Matt’s question “What about spam?” you concluded “spamming it is a breeze”, right? You’re not alone.

Before we discuss how to abuse it, it might be a good idea to define it within its context, ok?

Playground

First of all, Google announced these meta tags on the official Google News blog  for a reason. So when you plan to abuse it with your countless MFA proxies of Yahoo Answers, you most probably jumped on the wrong band wagon. Google supports the meta elements below in Google News only.

syndication-source

The first new indexer hint is syndication-source. It’s meant to tell Google the permalink of a particular news story, hence the author and all the folks spreading the word are asked to use it to point to the one –and only one– URI considered the source:

<meta name="syndication-source" content="http://outerspace.com/news/ubercool-geeks-launched-google-hotpot.html" />

The meta element above is for instances of the story served from
http://outerspace.com/breaking/page1.html
http://outerspace.com/yyyy-mm-dd/page2.html
http://outerspace.com/news/aliens-appreciate-google-hotpot.html
http://outerspace.com/news/ubercool-geeks-launched-google-hotpot.html
http://newspaper.com/main/breaking.html
http://tabloid.tv/rehashed/from/rss/hot:alien-pot-in-your-bong.html
…

Don’t confuse it with the cross-domain rel-canonical link element. It’s not about canning duplicate content, it marks a particular story, regardless whether it’s somewhat rewritten or just reprinted with a different headline. It tells Google News to use the original URI when the story can be crawled from different URIs on the author’s server, and when syndicated stories on other servers are so similar to the initial piece that Google News prefers to use the original (the latter is my educated guess).

original-source

The second new indexer hint is original-source. It’s meant to tell Google the origin of the news itself, so the author/enterprise digging it out of the mud, as well as all the folks using it later on, are asked to declare who broke the story:

<meta name="original-source" content="http://outerspace.com/news/ubercool-geeks-launched-google-hotpot.html" />

Say we’ve got two or more related news, like “Google fell from Mars” by cnn.com and “Google landed in Mountain View” by sfgate.com, it makes sense for latimes.com to publish a piece like “Google fell from Mars and landed in Mountain View”. Because latimes.com is a serious newspaper, they credit their sources not only with a mention or even embedded links, they do it machine-readable, too:

<meta name="original-source" content="http://cnn.com/google-fell-from-mars.html" />
<meta name="original-source" content="http://sfgate.com/google-landed-in-mountain-view.html" />

It’s a matter of course that both cnn.com and sfgate.com provide such an original-source meta element on their pages, in addition to the syndication-source meta element, both pointing to their very own coverage.

If a journalist grabbed his breaking news from a secondary source telling “CNN reported five minutes ago that Google’s mothership started from Venus, and the LA Times spotted it crashing on Jupiter”, he can’t be bothered with looking at the markup and locating those meta elements in the head section, he has a deadline for his piece “Why Web search left Planet Earth”. It’s just fine with Google News when he puts

<meta name="original-source" content="http://cnn.com/" />
<meta name="original-source" content="http://sfgate.com/" />

Fine-prints

As always, the most interesting stuff is hidden on a help page:

At this time, Google News will not make any changes to article ranking based on this tags.

If we detect that a site is using these metatags inaccurately (e.g., only to promote their own content), we’ll reduce the importance we assign to their metatags. And, as always, we reserve the right to remove a site from Google News if, for example, we determine it to be spammy.

As with any other publisher-supplied metadata, we will be taking steps to ensure the integrity and reliability of this information.

It’s a field test

We think it is a promising method for detecting originality among a diverse set of news articles, but we won’t know for sure until we’ve seen a lot of data. By releasing this tag, we’re asking publishers to participate in an experiment that we hope will improve Google News and, ultimately, online journalism. […] Eventually, if we believe they prove useful, these tags will be incorporated among the many other signals that go into ranking and grouping articles in Google News. For now, syndication-source will only be used to distinguish among groups of duplicate identical articles, while original-source is only being studied and will not factor into ranking. [emphasis mine]

Spam potential

Well, we do know that Google Web search has a spam problem, IOW even a few so-1999-webspam-tactics still work to some extent. So we tend to classify a vague threat like “If we find sites abusing these tags, we may […] remove [those] from Google News entirely” as FUD, and spam away. Common sense and experience tells us that a smart marketer will make money from everything spammable.

But: we’re not talking about Web search. Google News is a clearly laid out environment. There are only so many sites covered by Google News. Even if Google wouldn’t be able to develop algos analyzing all source attribution attributes out there, they do have the resources to identify abuse using manpower alone. Most probably they will do both.

They clearly told us that they will compare those meta data to other signals. And that’s not only very weak indicators like “timestamp first crawled” or “first heard of via pubsubhubbub”. It’s not that hard to isolate particular news, gather each occurrence as well as source mentions within, and arrange those on a time line with clickable links for QC folks who most certainly will identify the actual source. Even a few spot tests daily will soon reveal the sites whose source attribution meta tags are questionable, or even spammy.

If you’re still not convinced, fair enough. Go spam away. Once you’ve lost your entry on the whitelist, your free traffic from Google News, as well as from news-one-box results on conventional SERPs, is toast.

Last but not least, a fair warning

Now, if you still want to use source attribution meta elements on your non-newsworthy MFA sites to claim owership of your scraped content, feel free to do so. Most probably Matt’s team will appreciate just another “I’m spamming Google” signal.

Not that reprinting scraped content is considered shady any more: even a former president does it shamelessly. It’s just the almighty Google in all of its evilness that penalizes you for considering all on-line content public domain.

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

Summary first: If you feel the need to cloak, just do it within reason. Don’t cloak because you can, but because it’s technically the most elegant procedure to accomplish a Web development task. Bing and Google can’t detect your (in no way deceptive) intend algorithmically. Don’t spam away, though, because you might leave trails besides cloaking alone, if you aren’t good enough at spamming search engines. Keep your users interests in mind. Don’t comply to search engine guidelines as set in stone, but to a reasonable level, for example when those force you to comply to Web standards that make more sense than the fancy idea you’ve developed on internationalization, based on detecting browser language settings or so.

This pamphlet is an opinion piece. The above said should be considered best practice, even by search engines. Of course it’s not, because search engines can and do fail, just like a webmaster who takes my statement “go cloak away if it makes sense” as technical advice and gets his search engine visibility tanked the hard way.

WTF is cloaking?

Cloaking, also known as IP delivery, means delivering content tailored for specific users who are identified primarily by their IP addresses, but also by user agent (browser, crawler, screen reader…) names, and whatnot. Here’s a simple demonstration of this technique. The content of the next paragraph differs depending on the user requesting this page. Googlebot, Googlers, as well as Matt Cutts at work, will read a personalized message:

Dear visitor, thanks for your visit from 3.233.229.90 (ec2-3-233-229-90.compute-1.amazonaws.com).

You surely can imagine that cloaking opens a can of worms lots of opportunities to enhance a user’s surfing experience, besides “stalking” particular users like Google’s head of WebSpam.

Why do search engines dislike cloaking?

Apparently they don’t. They use IP delivery themselves. When you’re traveling in europe, you’ll get hints like “go to Google.fr” or “go to Google.at” all the time. That’s google.com checking where you are, trying to lure you into their regional services.

More seriously, there’s a so-called “dark side of cloaking”. Say you’re a seasoned Internet marketer, then you could show Googlebot an educational page with compelling content under an URI like “/games/poker” with an X-Robots-Tag HTTP header telling “noarchive”, whilst surfers (search engine users) supplying an HTTP_REFERER and not coming from employee.google.com get redirected to poker dot com (simplified example).

That’s hard to detect for Google’s WebSpam team. Because they don’t do evil themselves, they can’t officially operate sneaky bots that use for example AOL as their ISP to compare your spider fodder to pages/redirects served to actual users.

Bing sends out spam bots that request your pages “as a surfer” in order to discover deceptive cloaking. Of course those bots can be identified, so professional spammers serve them their spider fodder. Besides burning the bandwidth of non-cloaking sites, Bing doesn’t accomplish anything useful in terms of search quality.

Because search engines can’t detect cloaking properly, not to speak of a cloaking webmaster’s intentions, they’ve launched webmaster guidelines (FUD) that forbid cloaking at all. All Google/Bing reps tell you that cloaking is an evil black hat tactic that will get your site penalized or even banned. By the way, the same goes for perfectly legit “hidden content” that’s invisible on page load, but viewable after a mouse click on a “learn more” widget/link or so.

Bullshit.

If your competitor makes creative use of IP delivery to enhance their visitors’ surfing experience, you can file a spam report for cloaking and Google/Bing will ban the site eventually. Just because cloaking can be used with deceptive intent. And yes, it works this way. See below.

Actually, those spam reports trigger a review by a human, so maybe your competitor gets away with it. But search engines also use spam reports to develop spam filters that penalize crawled pages totally automatted. Such filters can fail, and –trust me– they do fail often. Once you must optimize your content delivery for particular users or user groups yourself, such a filter could tank your very own stuff by accident. So don’t snitch on your competitors, because tomorrow they’ll return the favor.

Enforcing a “do not cloak” policy is evil

At least Google’s WebSpam team comes with cojones. They’ve even banned their very own help pages for “cloaking“, although those didn’t serve porn to minors searching for SpongeBob images with safe-search=on.

That’s overdrawn, because the help files of any Google product aren’t usable without a search facility. When I click “help” in any Google service like AdWords, I get either blank pages, and/or links within the help system are broken because the destination pages were deindexed for cloaking. Plain evil, and counter productive.

Just because Google’s help software doesn’t show ads and related links to Googlebot, those pages aren’t guilty of deceptive cloaking. Ms Googlebot won’t pull the plastic, so it makes no sense to serve her advertisements. Related links are context sensitive just like ads, so it makes no sense to persist them in Google’s crawling cache, or even in Google’s search index. Also, as a user I really don’t care whether Google has crawled the same heading I see on a help page or not, as long as I get directed to relevant content, that is a paragraph or more that answers my question.

When a search engine doesn’t deliver the very best search results intentionally, just because those pages violate an outdated and utterly useless policy that rules fraudulent tactics in a shape lastly used in the last century and doesn’t take into account how the Internet works today, I’m pissed.

Maybe that’s not bad at all when applied to Google products? Bullshit, again. The same happens to any other website that doesn’t fit Google’s weird idea of “serving the same content to users and crawlers”. I mean, as long as Google’s crawlers come from US IPs only, how can a US based webmaster serve the same content in German language to a user coming from Austria and Googlebot, both requesting a URI like “/shipping-costs?lang=de” that has to be different for each user because shipping a parcel to Germany costs $30.00 and a parcel of the same weight shipped to Vienna costs $40.00? Don’t tell me bothering a user with shipping fees for all regions in CH/AT/DE all on one page is a good idea, when I can reduce the information overflow to a tailored info of just one shipping fee that my user expects to see, followed by a link to a page that lists shipping costs for all european countries, or all countries where at least some folks might speak/understand German.

Back to Google’s ban of its very own help pages that hid AdSense code from Googlebot. Of course Google wants to see what surfers see in order to deliver relevant search results, and that might include advertisements. However, surrounding ads don’t necessarily obfuscate the page’s content. Ads served instead of content do. So when Google wants to detect ad laden thin pages, they need to become smarter. Penalizing pages that don’t show ads to search engine crawlers is a bad idea for a search engine, because not showing ads to crawlers is a good idea, not only bandwidth-wise, for a webmaster.

Managing this dichotomy is the search engine’s job. They shouldn’t expect webmasters to help them solving their very own problems (maintaining search quality). In fact, bothering webmasters with policies solely put because search engine algos are fallible and incapable is plain evil. The same applies to instruments like rel-nofollow (launched to help Google devaluing spammy links but backfiring enormously) or Google’s war on paid links (as if not each and every link on the whole Internet is paid/bartered for, somehow).

What do you think, should search engines ditch their way too restrictive “don’t cloak” policies? Click to vote:

Update 2010-07-06: Don’t miss out on Danny Sullivan’s “Google be fair!” appeal, posted today: Why Google Should Ban Its Own Help Pages — But Also Shouldn’t

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

Say there’s a search engine that tries very hard to serve relevant results for long tail search queries. Maybe it even accepted that an algo change –supposed to wipe out shitloads of thin pages from its long tail search result pages (SERPs)– is referred to as #MayDay. One should think that this search engine isn’t exactly eager to annoy its users with crappy mash-up pages consisting of shabby stuff scraped from all known sources of duplicate content on the whole InterWebs.

Wrong.

Prominent SE spammers like Mahalo still flood the visible part of search indexes with boatloads of crap that never should be able to cheat its way onto any SERP, not even via a [site:spam.com] search. Learn more from Aaron and Michael, who’ve both invested their valuable time to craft out detailled spam reports, to no avail.

Frustrating.

Wait. Why does a bunch of spammy Web pages creates such a fuss? Because they’re findable in the search index. Of course a search engine must crawl all the WebSpam out there, and its indexer has to judge the value of all the content it gets feeded with. But there’s absolutely no need to bother the query engine, that gathers and ranks the stuff presented on the SERPs, with crap like that.

Dear Google, why do you annoy your users with spam created by “a scheme that your automated system handles quite well” at all? Those awesome spam filters should just flag crappy pages as not-SERP-worthy, so that they can never see the daylight at google.com/search. I mean, why should any searcher be at risk of pulling useless search results from your index? Hopefully not because these misleaded searchers tend to click on lots of Google ads on said pages, right?

I’d rather enjoy an empty SERP for an exotic search query, than suffer from a single link to a useless page plastered with huge ads, even if it comes with a tiny portion of stolen content that might be helpful if pointing to the source.

Do you feel like me? Speak out!

Hey Google, I dislike spam on your SERPs! #spam-report

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

I’m pissed. I do know I shouldn’t blog in rage, but Google redirecting search engine result pages to totally useless InternetExplorer ads just fires up my ranting machine.

What does the almighty Google say about URIs that should deliver useful content to searchers, but sneakily redirect to full page ads? Here you go. Google’s webmaster guidelines explicitely forbid such black hat tactics:

“Don’t use cloaking or sneaky redirects.” Google just did the latter with its very own SERPs. The search interface google.com/ie, out in the wild for nearly a decade, redirects to a piece of sidebar HTML offering a download of IE8 optimized for Google. That’s a helpful redirect for some IE6 users who don’t suffer from an IT department stuck with this outdated browser, but it’s plain misleading in the eyes of all those searchers who appreciated this clean and totally uncluttered search interface. Interestingly, UA cloaking is the only way to heal this sneaky behavior.

“Don’t create pages with malicious behavior.” Google’s guilty, too. Instead of checking for the user’s browser, redirecting only IE6 requests from Google’s discontiued IE6 support (IE6 toolbar …) to the IE8 advertisement, whilst all other user agents get their desired search box, respectively their SERPs, under a google.com/search?output=ie&… URI, Google performs an unconditional redirect to a page that’s utterly useless and also totally unexpected for many searchers. I consider misleading redirects malicious.

“Avoid links to web spammers or ‘bad neighborhoods’ on the web.” I consider the propaganda for IE that Google displays instead of the search results I’d expect a bad neighborhood on the Web, because IE constantly ignores Web standards, forcing developers and designers to implement superfluous work arounds. (Ok, ok, ok … Google’s lack of geekiness doesn’t exactly count as violation of their webmaster guidelines, but it sounds good, doesn’t it?)

Hey Matt Cutts, about time to ban google.com/ie!

Google’s very best search interface is history. Here is what you got under
http://www.google.com/ie?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=minimalistic:

And here is where Google sneakily redirects you to when you load the SERP link above (even with Chrome!):
http://www.google.com/toolbar/ie8/sidebar.html:

It’s sad that a browser vendor like Google (and yes, Google Chrome is my favorite browser) feels the need to mislead its users with propaganda for a competiting browser that’s slower and doesn’t render everything as it should render it. But when this particular browser vendor also leads Web search, and makes use of black hat techniques that it bans webmasters for, then that’s a scandal. So, if you agree, please submit a spam report to Google:

Hey Matt Cutts, about time to ban google.com/ie! #spam-report

2010-05-17 I’ve updated this pamphlet because it didn’t explain the “sneakiness” clear enough. As of today, the unconditional redirect is still sneaky IMHO. Google needs to deliver searchers their desired search results, and only stubborn IE6 users ads for a somewhat better browser.

2010-05-18 Q: You’re pissed solely because your SERP scraping scrips broke. A: Glad you’ve asked. Yes, I’ve scraped Google’s /ie search too. Not because I’m a privacy nazi like Daniel Brandt. I’ve just checked (my) rankings. However, when I spotted the redirects I didn’t even remember the location of the scripts that scraped this service, because I didn’t look at ranking reports for years. I’m interested in actual traffic, and revenues. Ego food annoys me. I just love the /ie search interface. So the answer is a bold “no”. I don’t give a fucking dead rat’s ass what ranking reports based on scraped SERPs could tell.

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

Minutes after the launch of Google’s famous Real Time Search, the Internet marketing community began to spam the scrolling SERPs. Google gave birth to a new spam industry.

I’m sure Google’s WebSpam team will pull the plug sooner or later, but as of today Google’s real time search results are extremely vulnerable to questionable content.

The somewhat shady approach to make creative use of real time search I’m outlining below will not work forever. It can be used for really evil purposes, and Google is aware of the problem. Frankly, if I’d be the Googler in charge, I’d dump the whole real-time thingy until the spam defense lines are rock solid.

Here’s the recipe from Dr Evil’s WebSpam-Cook-Book:

Ingredients

• 1 popular topic that pulls lots of searches, but not so many that the results scroll down too fast.
• 1 landing page that makes the punter pull out the plastic in no time.
• 1 trusted authority page totally lacking commercial intentions. View its source code, it must have a valid TITLE element with an appealing call for action related to your topic in its HEAD section.
• 1 short domain, 1 cheap Web hosting plan (Apache, PHP), 1 plain text editor, 1 FTP client, 1 Twitter account, and a prize basic coding skills.

Preparation

Create a new text file and name it hot-topic.php or so. Then code:
<?php
$landingPageUri = "http://affiliate-program.com/?your-aff-id";
$trustedPageUri = "http://google.com/something.py";
if (stristr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"], "Googlebot")) {
header("HTTP/1.1 307 Here you go today", TRUE, 307);
header("Location: $trustedPageUri");
}
else {
header("HTTP/1.1 301 Happy shopping", TRUE, 301);
header("Location: $landingPageUri");
}
exit;
?>

Provided you’re a savvy spammer, your crawler detection routine will be a little more complex.

Save the file and upload it, then test the URI http://youspamaw.ay/hot-topic.php in your browser.

Serving

• Login to Twitter and submit lots of nicely crafted, not too much keyword stuffed messages carrying your spammy URI. Do not use obscene language, e.g. don’t swear, and sail around phrases like ‘buy cheap viagra’ with synonyms like ‘brighten up your girl friend’s romantic moments’.
• On their SERPs, Google will display the text from the trusted page’s TITLE element, linked to your URI that leads punters to a sales pitch of your choice.
• Just for entertainment, closely monitor Google’s real time SERPs, and your real-time sales stats as well.
• Be happy and get rich by end of the week.

Google removes links to untrusted destinations, that’s why you need to abuse authority pages. As long as you don’t launch f-bombs, Google’s profanity filters make flooding their real time SERPs with all sorts of crap a breeze.

Hey Google, for the sake of our children, take that as a spam report!

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

I stole this pamphlet’s title (and more) from Google’s post Hard facts about comment spam for a reason. In fact, Google spams the Web with useless clutter, too. You doubt it? Read on. That’s the URI from the link above:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/11/hard-facts-about-comment-spam.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FamDG+%28Official+Google+Webmaster+Central+Blog%29

I’ve bolded the canonical URI, everything after the questionmark is clutter added by Google.

When your Google account lists both Feedburner and GoogleAnalytics as active services, Google will automatically screw your URIs when somebody clicks a link to your site in a feed reader (you can opt out, see below).

Why is it bad?

FACT: Google’s method to track traffic from feeds to URIs creates new URIs. And lots of them. Depending on the number of possible values for each query string variable (utm_source utm_medium utm_campaign utm_content utm_term) the amount of cluttered URIs pointing to the same piece of content can sum up to dozens or more.

FACT: Bloggers (publishers, authors, anybody) naturally copy those cluttered URIs to paste them into their posts. The same goes for user link drops at Twitter and elsewhere. These links get crawled and indexed. Currently Google’s search index is flooded with 28,900,000 cluttered URIs mostly originating from copy+paste links. Bing and Yahoo didn’t index GA tracking parameters yet.

That’s 29 million URIs with tracking variables that point to duplicate content as of today. With every link copied from a feed reader, this number will increase. Matt Cutts said “I don’t think utm will cause dupe issues” and points to John Müller’s helpful advice (methods a site owner can apply to tidy up Google’s mess).

Maybe Google can handle this growing duplicate content chaos in their very own search index. Lets forget that Google is the search engine that advocated URI canonicalization for ages, invented sitemaps, rel=canonical, and countless high sophisticated algos to merge indexed clutter under the canonical URI. It’s all water under the bridge now that Google is in the create-multiple-URIs-pointing-to-the-same-piece-of-content business itself.

So far that’s just disappointing. To understand why it’s downright evil, lets look at the implications from a technical point of view.

Spamming URIs with utm tracking variables breaks lots of things

Look at this URI: http://www.example.com/search.aspx?Query=musical+mobile?utm_source=Referral&utm_medium=Internet&utm_campaign=celebritybabies

Google added a query string to a query string. Two URI segment delimiters (“?”) can cause all sorts of troubles at the landing page.

Some scripts will process only variables from Google’s query string, because they extract GET input from the URI’s last questionmark to the fragment delimiter “#” or end of URI; some scripts expecting input variables in a particular sequence will be confused at least; some scripts might even use the same variable names … the number of possible errors caused by amateurish extended query strings is infinite. Even if there’s only one “?” delimiter in the URI.

In some cases the page the user gets faced with will lack the expected content, or will display a prominent error message like 404, or will consist of white space only because the underlying script failed so badly that the Web server couldn’t even show a 5xx error.

Regardless whether a landing page can handle query string parameters added to the original URI or not (most can), changing someone’s URI for tracking purposes is plain evil, IMHO, when implemented as opt-out instead of opt-in.

Appended UTM query strings can make trackbacks vanish, too. When a blog checks whether the trackback URI is carrying a link to the blog or not, for example with this plug-in, the comparision can fail and the trackback gets deleted on arrival, without notice. If I’d dig a little deeper, most probably I could compile a huge list of other functionalities on the Internet that are broken by Google’s UTM clutter.

Finally, GoogleAnalytics is not the one and only stats tool out there, and it doesn’t fulfil all needs. Many webmasters rely on simple server reports, for example referrer stats or tools like awstats, for various technical purposes. Broken. Specialized content management tools feeded by real-time traffic data. Broken. Countless tools for linkpop analysis group inbound links by landing page URI. Broken. URI canonicalization routines. Broken, respecively now acting counterproductive with regard to GA reporting. Google’s UTM clutter has impact on lots of tools that make sense in addition to Google Analytics. All broken.

What a glorious mess. Frankly, I’m somewhat puzzled. Google has hired tens of thousands of this planet’s brightest minds –I really mean that, literally!–, and they came out with half-assed crap like that? Un-fucking-believable.

What can I do to avoid URI spam on my site?

Boycott Google’s poor man’s approach to link feed traffic data to Web analytics. Go to Feedburner. For each of your feeds click on “Configure stats” and uncheck “Track clicks as a traffic source in Google Analytics”. Done. Wait for a suitable solution.

If you really can’t live with traffic sources gathered from a somewhat unreliable HTTP_REFERER, and you’ve deep pockets, then hire a WebDev crew to revamp all your affected code. Coward!

As a matter of fact, Google is responsible for this royal pain in the ass. Don’t fix Google’s errors on your site. Let Google do the fault recovery. They own the root of all UTM evil, so they have to fix it. There’s absolutely no reason why a gazillion of webmasters and developers should do Google’s job, again and again.

What can Google do?

Well, that’s quite simple. Instead of adding utterly useless crap to URIs found in feeds, Google can make use of a clever redirect script. When Feedburner serves feed items to anybody, the values of all GA tracking variables are available.

Instead of adding clutter to these URIs, Feedburner could replace them with a script URI that stores the timestamp, the user’s IP addy, and whatnot, then performs a 301 redirect to the canonical URI. The GA script invoked on the landing page can access and process these data quite accurately.

Perhaps this procedure would be even more accurate, because link drops can no longer mimick feed traffic.

Speak out!

So, if you don’t approve that Feedburner, GoogleReader, AdSense4Feeds, and GoogleAnalytics gang rape your well designed URIs, then link out to everything Google with a descriptive query string, like:

?utm_source=sebastian&utm_medium=pamphlet&utm_campaign=thou+shalt+not+fuck+with+my+uris

I mean, nicely designed canonical URIs should be the search engineer’s porn, so perhaps somebody at Google will listen. Will ya?

Update:

I’ve just added a “UTM Killer” tool, where you can enter a screwed URI and get a clean URI — all ‘utm_’ crap and multiple ‘?’ delimiters removed — in return. That’ll help when you copy URIs from your feedreader to use them in your blog posts.

By the way, please vote up this pamphlet so that I get the 2010 SEMMY Award. Thanks in advance!

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

Every once in a while I switch to Dr Evil mode. That’s a “do more evil” type of pamphlet. Don’t bother reading the disclaimer, just spam away …

Why the heck should you invest valuable time into crafting out compelling content, when there’s a shortcut?

There are so many awesome Web pages out there, just pick some and steal their content. You say “duplicate content issues”, I say “don’t worry”. You say “copyright violation”, I say “be happy”. Below I explain the setup.

This somewhat shady IM technique is for you when you’re shy of automatted content generation.

Register a new (short!) domain and create a tiny site with a few pages of totally unique and somewhat interesting content. Write opinion pieces, academic papers or whatnot, just don’t use content generators or anything that cannot pass a human bullshit detector. No advertising. No questionable links. Instead, link out to authority pages. No SEO stuff like nofollow’ed links to imprints or so.

Launch with a few links from clean pages. Every now and then drop a deep link in relevant discussions on forums or social media sites. Let the search engines become familiar with your site. That’ll attract even a few natural inbound links, at least if your content is linkworthy.

Use Google’s Webmaster Console (GWC) to monitor your progress. Once all URIs from your sitemap are indexed and show in [site:yourwebspam.com] searches, begin to expand your site’s menu and change outgoing links to authority pages embedded in your content.

Create short URIs (LE 20 characters!) that point to authority pages. Serve search engine crawlers a 307, and human surfers a 301 redirect. Build deep links to those URIs, for example in tweets. Once you’ve gathered 1,000+ inbounds, you’ll receive SERP traffic. By the way, don’t buy the sandbox myths.

Watch the keywords page in you GWC account. It gets populated with keywords that appear only in content of pages you’ve hijacked with redirects. Watch your [site:yourwebspam.com] SERPs. Usually the top 10 keywords listed in the GWC report will originate from pages listed on the first [site:yourwebspam.com] SERPs, provided you’ve hijacked awesome content.

Add (new) keywords from pages that appear both in redirect destinations listed within the first 20 [site:yourwebspam.com] search results, as well as in the first 20 listed keywords, to articles you actually serve on your domain.

Detect SERP referrers (human surfers who’ve clicked your URIs on search result pages) and redirect those to sales pitches. That goes for content pages as well as for redirecting URIs (mimiking shortened URIs). Laugh all the way to the bank.

Search engines rarely will discover your scam. Of course shit happens, though. Once the domain is burned, just block crawlers, redirect everything else to your sponsors, and let the domain expire.

Disclaimer: Google has put an end to most 307 spam tactics. That’s why I’m publishing all this crap. Because watching decreasing traffic to spammy sites is frustrating. Deceptive 307′ing URIs won’t rank any more. Slowly, actually very slow, GWC reports follow suit.

What can we learn? Do not believe in the truth of search engine reports. Just because Google’s webmaster console tells you that Google thinks a keyword is highly relevant to your site, that doesn’t mean you’ll rank for it on their SERPs. Most probably GWC is not the average search engine spammer’s tool of the trade.

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

When you run a website that deals with user generated content (UGC), this pamphlet is for you. #bad_news Otherwise you might enjoy it. #malicious_joy

Jump station

• Background
• Risk Potential
• Defense Tactics
• Discuss

Not that the recent –and ongoing– paradigm shift shift in crawling, indexing, and ranking is bad news in general. On the contrary, for the tech savvy webmaster it comes with awesome opportunities with regard to traffic generation and search engine optimization. In this pamphlet I’ll blather about pitfalls, leaving chances unmentioned.

Background

For a moment forget everything you’ve heard about traditional crawling, indexing and ranking. Don’t buy that search engines solely rely on ancient technologies like fetching and parsing Web pages to scrape links and on-the-page signals out of your HTML. Just because someone’s link to your stuff is condomized, that doesn’t mean that Google & Co don’t grab its destination instantly.

More and more, search engines crawl, index, and rank stuff hours, days, or even weeks before they actually bother to fetch the first HTML page that carries a (nofollow’ed) link pointing to it. For example, Googlebot might follow a link you’ve tweeted right when the tweet appears on your timeline, without crawling http://twitter.com/your-user-name or the timeline page of any of your followers. Magic? Nope. The same goes for favs/retweets, stumbles, delicious bookmarks etc., by the way.

Guess why Google encourages you to make your ATOM and RSS feeds crawlable. Guess why FeedBurner publishes each and every update of your blog via PubSubHubbub so that Googlebot gets an alert of new and updated posts (and comments) as you release them. Guess why Googlebot is subscribed to FriendFeed, crawling everything (blog feed items, Tweets, social media submissions, comments …) that hits a FriendFeed user account in real-time. Guess why GoogleReader passes all your Likes and Shares to Googlebot. Guess why Bing and Google are somewhat connected to Twitter’s database, getting all updates, retweets, fav-clicks etc. within a few milliseconds.

Because all these data streams transport structured data that are easy to process. Because these data get pushed to the search engine. That’s way cheaper, and faster, than polling a gazillion of sources for updates 24/7/365.

Making use of structured data (XML, RSS, ATOM, PUSHed updates …) enables search engines to index fresh content, as well as reputation and other off-page signals, on the fly. Many ranking signals can be gathered from these data streams and their context, others are already on file. Even if a feed item consists of just a few words and a link (e.g. a tweet or stumble-thumbs-up), processing the relevant on-the-page stuff from the link’s final destination by parsing cluttered HTML to extract content and recommendations (links) doesn’t really slow down the process.

Later on, when the formerly fresh stuff starts to decompose on the SERPs, signals extracted from HTML sources kick in, for example link condoms, link placement, context and so on. Starting with the discovery of a piece of content, search engines permanently refine their scoring, until the content finally drops out of scope (spam filtering, unpaid hosting bills and other events that make Web content disappear).

Traditional discovery crawling, indexing, and ranking doesn’t exactly work for real-time purposes, nor in near real-time. Not even when a search engine assigns a bazillion of computers to this task. Also, submission based crawling is not exactly a Swiss Army knife when it comes to timely content. Although XML-sitemaps were a terrific accelerator, they must be pulled for processing, hence a delay occurs by design.

Nothing is like it used to be. Change happens.

Why does this paradigm shift puts your site at risk?

As a matter of fact, when you publish user generated content, you will get spammed. Of course, that’s bad news of yesterday. Probably you’re confident that your anti-spam defense lines will protect you. You apply link condoms to UGC link drops and all that. You remove UGC once you spot it’s spam that slipped through your filters.

Bad news is, your medieval palisade won’t protect you from a 21th century tank attack with air support. Why not? Because you’ve secured your HTML presentation layer, but not your feeds. There’s no such thing as a rel-nofollow microformat for URIs in feeds, and even condomized links transported as CDATA (in content elements) are surrounded by spammy textual content.

Feed items come with a high risk. Once they’re released, they’re immortal and multiply themselves like rabbits. That’s bad enough in case a pissed employee ‘accidently’ publishes financial statements on your company blog. It becomes worse when seasoned spammers figure out that their submissions can make it into your feeds, and be it only for a few milliseconds.

If your content management system (CMS) creates a feed item on submission, search engines –in good company with legions of Web services– will distribute it all over the InterWeb, before you can hit the delete button. It will be cached, duplicated, published and reprinted … it’s out of your control. You can’t wipe out all of its instances. Never.

Congrats. You found a surefire way to piss off both your audience (your human feed subscribers getting their feed reader flooded with PPC spam), and search engines as well (you send them weird spam signals that rise all sorts of red flags). Also, it’s not desirable to make social media services –that you rely on for marketing purposes– too suspicious (trigger happy anti-spam algos might lock away your site’s base URI in an escape-proof dungeon).

So what can you do to prevent your feeds from unwanted content?

Before I discuss advanced feed protection, let me point you to a few popular vulnerabilities you might haven’t considered yet:

• No nay never use integers as IDs before you’re dead sure that a piece of submitted content is floral white as snow. Integer sequences produce guessable URIs. Instead, generate a UUID (aka GUID) as identifier. Yeah, I know that UUIDs make ugly URIs, but those aren’t predictable and therefore not that vulnerable. Once a content submission is finally approved, you can donate it a nice –maybe even meaningful– URI.
• No nay never use titles, subjects or so in URIs, not even converted text from submissions (e.g. ‘My PPC spam’ ==> ‘my_ppc_spam’). Why not? See above. And you don’t really want to create URIs that contain spammy keywords, or keywords that are totally unrelated to your site. Remember that search engines do index even URIs they can’t fetch, or which they can’t refetch, at least for a while.
• Before the final approval, serve submitted content with a “noindex,nofollow,noarchive,nosnippet” X-Robots-Tag in the HTTP header, and put a corresponding meta element in the HEAD section. Don’t rely on link condoms. Sometimes search engines ignore rel-nofollow as an indexer directive on link level, and/or decide that they should crawl the link’s destination anyway.
• Consider serving social media bots requesting a not yet approved piece of user generated content a 503 HTTP response code. You can compile a list of their IPs and user agent names from your raw logs. These bots don’t obey REP directives, that means they fetch and process your stuff regardless whether you yell “noindex” at them or not.
• For all burned (disapproved) URIs that were in use ensure that your server returns a 410-Gone HTTP status code, respectively perform a 301 redirect to a policy page or so to rescue link love that would get wasted otherwise.
• Your Web forms for content submissions should be totally AJAX’ed. Use CAPTCHAs and all that. Split the submission process into multiple parts, each of them talking to the server. Reject excessively rapid walk throughs, for example by asking for something unusual when a step gets completed in a too short period of time. With AJAX calls that’s painless for the legit user. Do not accept content submissions via standard GET or POST requests.
• Serve link builders coming from SERPs for [URL|story|link submit|submission your site’s topic] etc. your policy page, not the actual Web form.
• There’s more. With the above said, I’ve just begun to scrape the surface of a savvy spammer’s technical portfolio. There’s next to nothing a clever programmed bot can’t mimick. Be creative and think outside the box. Otherwise the spammers will be ahead of you in no time, especially when you make use of a standard CMS.

Having said that, lets proceed to feed protection tactics. Actually, there’s just one principle set in stone:

Make absolutely sure that submitted content can’t make it into your feeds (and XML sitemaps) before it’s finally approved!

The interesting question is: what the heck is a “final approval”? Well, that depends on your needs. Ideally, that’s you releasing each and every piece of submitted content. Since this approach doesn’t scale, think of ways to semi-automate the process. Don’t fully automate it, there’s no such thing as an infallible algo. Also, consider the wisdom of the crowd spammable (voting bots). Some spam will slip through, guaranteed.

Each and every content submission must survive a probation period, whereas it will not be included in your site’s feeds. Regardless who contributed it. Stick with the four-eye principle. Here are a few generic procedures you could adapt, respectively ideas which could inspire you:

• Queue submissions. Possible queues are Blocked, Quarantaine, Suspect, Probation, and finally Released. Define simple rules and procedures that anyone involved can follow. SOPs lack work arounds and loopholes by design.
• Stuck content submissions from new users who didn’t participate in other ways in quarantaine. Moderate this queue and only manually release into the probation queue what passes the moderator’s heuristics. Signup-submit-and-forget is a typical spammer behavior.
• Maintain black lists of domain names, IPs, countries, user agent names, unwanted buzzwords and so on. Use filters to arrest submissions that contain keywords you wouldn’t expect to match your site’s theme in the Blocked or Quarantaine queue.
• On submission fetch the link’s content and analyze it, don’t stick with heuristic checks of URIs, titles and descriptions. Don’t use methods like PHP’s file_get_contents that don’t return HTTP response codes. You need to know whether a requested URI is the first one of a redirect chain, for example. Double check with a second request from another IP, preferably owned by a widely used ISP, with a standard browser’s user agent string, that provides an HTTP_REFERER, for example a Google SERP with a q parameter populated with a search term compiled from the submission’s suggested anchor text. If the returned content differs too much, set a red flag.
• Maintain white lists, too. That’s a great way to reduce the amount of inavoidable false positives.
• If you have editorial staff or moderators, they should get a Release to Feed  button. You can combine mod releases with a minimum number of user votes or so. For example you could define a rule like “release to feed if mod-release = true and num-trusted-votes > 10″.
• Categorize your user’s reputation and trustworthiness. A particular number of votes from trusted users could approve a submission for feed inclusion.
• Don’t automatically release submissions that have raised any flag. If that slows down the process, refine your flagging but don’t lower the limits.
• With all automatted releases, for example based on votings, oops, especially based on votings, implement at least one additional sanity check. For example discard votes from new users as well as from users with a low participation history, check the sequence of votes for patterns like similar periods of time between votings, and so on.

Disclaimer: That’s just some food for thoughts. I want to make absolutely clear that I can’t provide bullet-proof anti-spam procedures. Feel free to discuss your thoughts, concerns, questions … in the comments.

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments

I couldn’t care less about PageRank™ sculpting, because a well thought out link architecture does the job with all search engines, not just Google. That’s where Google is right on the money.

They own PageRank™, hence they can burn, evaporate, nillify, and even divide by zero or multiply by -1 as much PageRank™ as they like; of course as long as they rank my stuff nicely above my competitors.

Picture 1 shows Google’s PageRank™ factory as of 2007 or so. Actually, it’s a pretty simplified model, but since they’ve changed the PageRank™ algo anyway, you don’t need to bother with all the geeky details.

As a side note: you might ask why I don’t link to Matt Cutts and Danny Sullivan discussing the whole mess on their blogs? Well, probably Matt can’t afford my advertising rates, and the whole SEO industry has linked to Danny anyway. If you’re nosy, check out my source code to learn more about state of the art linkage very compliant to Google’s newest guidelines for advanced SEOs (summary: “Don’t trust underlined blue text on Web pages any longer!”).

What really matters is picture 2, revealing Google’s new PageRank™ facilities, silently launched in 2008. Again, geeky details are of minor interest. If you really want to know everything, then search for [operation bendover] at !Yahoo (it’s still top secret, and therefore not searchable at Google).

Unfortunately, advanced SEO folks (whatever that means, I use this term just because it seems to be an essential property assigned to the participants of the current PageRank™ uprising discussion) always try to confuse you with overcomplicated graphics and formulas when it comes to PageRank™. Instead, I ask you to focus on the (important) hard core stuff. So go grab a magnifier, and work out the differences:

• PageRank™ 2009 in comparision to PageRank™ 2007 comes with a pipeline supplying unlimited fuel. Also, it seems they’ve implemented the green new deal, switching from gas to natural gas. That means they can vaporize way more link juice than ever before.
• PageRank™ 2009 produces more steam, and the clouds look slightly different. Whilst PageRank™ 2007 ignored nofollow crap as well as links put with client sided scripting, PageRank™ 2009 evaporates not only juice covered with link condoms, but also tons of other permutations of the standard A element.
• To compensate the huge overall loss of PageRank™ caused by those changes, Google has decided to pass link juice from condomized links to their target URI hidden to Googlebot with JavaScript. Of course Google formerly has recommended the use of JavaScript-links to prevent the webmasters from penalties for so-called “questionable” outgoing links. Just as they’ve not only invented rel-nofollow, but heavily recommended the use of this microformat with all links disliked by Google, and now they take that back as if a gazillion links on the Web could magically change just because Google tweeks their algos. Doh! I really hope that the WebSpam-team checks the age of such links before they penalize everything implemented according to their guidelines before mid-2009 or the InterWeb’s downfall, whatever comes last.

I guess in the meantime you’ve figured out that I’m somewhat pissed. Not that the secretly changed flow of PageRank™ a year ago in 2008 had any impact on my rankings, or SERP traffic. I’ve always designed my stuff with PageRank™ flow in mind, but without any misuses of rel=”nofollow”, so I’m still fine with Google.

What I can’t stand is when a search engine tries to tell me how I’ve to link (out). Google engineers are really smart folks, they’re perfectly able to develop a PageRank™ algo that can decide how much Google-juice a particular link should pass. So dear Googlers, please –WRT to the implementation of hyperlinks– leave us webmasters alone, dump the rel-nofollow crap and rank our stuff in the best interest of your searchers. No longer bother us with linking guidelines that change yearly. It’s not our job nor responsibility to act as your cannon fodder slavish code monkeys when you spot a loophole in your ranking- or spam-detection-algos.

Of course the above said is based on common sense, so Google won’t listen (remember: I’m really upset, hence polemic statements are absolutely appropriate). To prevent webmasters from irrational actions by misleaded search engines, I hereby introduce the

Webmaster guidelines for search engine friendly links

What follows is pseudo-code, implement it with your preferred server sided scripting language.

if (getAttribute($link, 'rel') matches '*nofollow*' &&
    $userAgent matches '*Googlebot*') {
    print '<strong rev="' + getAttribute(link, 'href') + '"'
    + ' style="color:blue; text-decoration:underlined;"'
    + ' onmousedown="window.location=document.getElementById(this.id).rev; "'
    + '>' + getAnchorText($link) + '</strong>';
}
else {
    print $link;
}

Probably it’s a good idea to snip both the onmousedown trigger code as well as the rev attribute, when the script gets executed by Googlebot. Just because today Google states that they’re going to pass link juice to URIs grabbed from the onclick trigger, that doesn’t mean they’ll never look at the onmousedown event or misused (X)HTML attributes.

This way you can deliver Googlebot exactly the same stuff that the punter surfer gets. You’re perfectly compliant to Google’s cloaking restrictions. There’s no need to bother with complicated stuff like iFrames or even disabled blog comments, forums or guestbooks.

Just feed the crawlers with all the crap the search engines require, then concentrate all your efforts on your UI for human vistors. Web robots (bots, crawlers, spiders, …) don’t supply your signup-forms w/ credit card details. Humans do. If you find the time to upsell them while search engines keep you busy with thoughtless change requests all day long.

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.us • Google • ma.gnolia • Mixx • Netscape • reddit • Sphinn • Squidoo • StumbleUpon • Yahoo MyWeb Subscribe to Entries Comments All Comments