It has to be tough policing a program like AdSense. It must be exceptionally difficult during the holiday season, when the payoff to running scams grows so much more. It is so tough, in fact, that this year as the holiday shopping season grows near, with Black Friday just a few short days away, that apparently Google has finally decided to say “fuck it”, make it easier on themselves, just remove the ability for anyone to report any violations of the program whatsoever, and allow the scammers to have a field day in the mean time.

While Google may want to give the impression to their stockholders and the public that they have both the search engine spam and advertising program cheaters fully under control, the truth is that they rely quite a bit on reports from the community and consumers for both spam and AdSense violations. For any spam that they find, Google asks people to submit a Google spam report. At this point they require that someone log in before actually filing the report itself. This makes sense, since it helps prevent people erroneously filing large amount of spam reports against their competitors. For the AdSense violations they supply a separate form that does not require a log in, titled simply Reporting a Violation – AdSense Help. Usually I don’t run into offending sites with AdSense on them that fill me with enough of a sense of civic duty where I feel compelled to actually fill out a report, but I happened to land on one such today that actually tricked me into clicking on an ad in such a way that it really did annoy me. The page I landed on was BigSiteofAmazingFacts How Much Does The Earth Weigh (yes, I was distracted by trivial shit again, don’t judge me), and in the right sidebar there was what appeared to be an embedded Youtube Video from Family Guy:

Still distracted (of course) I clicked Play on the video, only instead of playing it suddenly brought me to a site trying to sell me bras. So, thinking I must have missed the rather large video in the sidebar when I tried to click on it, I hit the back button… and noticed that suddenly the video was gone altogether, and where before I had seen 2 AdSense blocks and a video, now there were 3 AdSense blocks instead:

I hit refresh a few times but the video didn’t return. At that point I realized that it was actually a scam, so I cleared my cookies for that domain, hit refresh again, and viola, the “video” reappeared once again. At this point I was sufficiently irked that I actually decided I was going to report this asshole. It’s bad enough that a site with crap content like this is ranking #1 (the weight of the Earth is increasing each year from salt from the ocean spray? Seriously, wtf?), while people with content that is just fine are getting penalized supposedly from the Panda fallout. To add in that the guy who owns the site is ripping off advertisers as well just makes it so much worse. So, I headed on over to the AdSense Violation report to be a good citizen… and I was greeted by this:

An essentially blank page, with only a header, navigation, and a box asking me to tell AdSense how they can improve. Go figure.

From a financial perspective it does make sense for Google to make reporting AdSense violators more difficult, especially during the holidays. People who run scams like this actually generate Google money through the AdSense program, a program which currently has absolutely no oversight. It is exactly this lack of oversight that means that Google is the only one who knows how much, if any, of the advertising dollars are credited back to the advertisers once these scams are revealed. Hiding the violations report means that much fewer sites will be reported, more scams will be able to run for longer periods of time, and more money will wind up in Google’s pockets.

Is this profit motive really the reason that the report form is missing? If you ask Google I am sure they would say “of course not, we’re Google, you can trust us”. And since everything with Google is proprietary “behind closed doors” trade secrets with them, there is no way to know exactly how many violation reports suddenly went missing that apparently no one has noticed yet. My hunch though is that with something like this, as online shopping hits the holiday rush, the lack of reports that are coming in at the moment is actually too big for them not to have noticed by now, and them not fixing it for this long must be at least in some part intentional on their end.

Update: As Jen from JenSense.com pointed out in the comments, there is another newer page available where you can actually file the report located here. However, I am not sure that makes it any better, and may in fact make it worse. I wound up on the empty page by actually going to Google and searching for [report adsense violation]. The page that Jen provided is in the list, but it is down under the blank page that I found, another unhelpful blank page, and underneath a list of discussion of other people looking for the form. This begs the question… why did Google leave an otherwise empty page behind with just enough text (ie. header and title) and all of the old link juice there to outrank the “real” form? If they redesigned the site, then why not 301 redirect the old form(s) to the new one? It’s not like they don’t know how search engines work, ya know?

[cue elevator music]

Ok, good, you’re back. If you followed some of the aftermath in the comments, on Twitter, and on various media outlets and celebrity blogs around the web (including Gawker and Wil Wheaton), you can tell that Jenny obviously has a large amount of supporters who were less than pleased at Jose Douche Canoe Martinez. The outcry got just loud enough that Brandlink Communications actually started to play the wounded bird card:

Apparently Jose Martinez felt so victimized from the whole experience, he actually decided that he needed to delete his entire Twitter account (or, of course, it could be that he was trying to do the internet equivalent of burning the evidence of his douchiness).

Quick side note: if a PR company’s first instinct when they come under fire is to duck and run, and get defensive, as opposed to owning up, making it right, and the moving on, then odds are that same PR company would not hesitate to throw a client under the bus if they felt it was necessary for their own self preservation. Anyone who is researching this company with the possibility of hiring them should probably keep that in mind.

Either way, I guess Jenny didn’t realize quite how much support she would receive, so she wound up actually asking her followers to put away the pitch forks:

UPDATED: I love you people. Really. Thank you for always having my back and for being so supportive during this weirdness. Jose has apologized, and I’ve been assured by the woman in charge of the company that they are aware and are handling it the best way they know how, so let’s give them some air and let them have the chance to do that. *deep breath* – Jenny Lawson, aka TheBloggess

Ok, so, maybe Jenny is right. Maybe some of her fans did get abusive towards Jose in the process of defending her (which, btw, I did not see myself, but I am guessing not everyone was polite) and it is time for us to let cooler heads prevail. However… I also don’t think this should fall just into internet obscurity, either. People who are looking to hire this PR firm should be able to find out who it is they are dealing with, and the first line of defense when doing research on a company is, of course, Google. Currently when you do a search for [brandlink communications], someone else’s post about Brandlink and TheBloggess is #1 (as a news story though, not as a regular listing), Brandlink Communications themselves show up next (which is actually the natural #1 listing, when no news stories show), and in the natural #10 spot is Jenny herself:

(Click to enlarge)

The news piece is of course only there for a short period of time, as all news pieces should be, and the rankings Jenny’s site has currently are probably also due to what Google refers to as QDF, or Query Deserves Freshness (where a particular search might warrant different results due to topic being “hot” at the moment). However, I think that Jenny’s site should be in the top 10 when searching on that company, even after the buzz dies down… possibly even #1. Therefore, here is what I suggest, if you happen to support Jenny in this issue:

1. Write a post showing your support for Jenny about the way she was treated. Don’t attack or “bully” anyone in the post, because despite them being in the wrong here Brandlink was right, bullying people is still wrong (although calling someone a douche canoe when they actually are one is just being descriptive imo)
2. In that post, link to Jenny’s blog post about the conversation, but use the phrase [brandlink communications] as the anchor text for the actual link.
3. If you link to the post more than once, make sure that link is the first link to the post.

For those of you wondering why, it is because links are still the number one factor Google uses when determining rankings. If you want more information on it, you can Google [santorum] and do some research… just don’t click on the first link.

Do I think this is too harsh? Perhaps if they weren’t a PR company boasting W Hotels and Chase as their clients I might be more inclined to go easy on them. However, even if they weren’t big shots treating those they regard as the “little people” like shit, there is also the fact that this behavior is not new for Jose, and there is evidence of him treating people like this all the way back to early 2006. The fact that the same guy is still VP Media Director 5 1/2 years later, still behaving the same way, makes the promises from the company that is “handling it the best way they know how” somewhat hollow. So yes, with that in mind I think that a response like this is quite fitting. Vote with your links, people, as Google intended you to.

In which Taylor says “um”, “like”, talks like a Scotsman, laughs, and sometimes gets excited. Sure, she said lots of other stuff too… but I didn’t include any of it in this video.

Proof that Taylor can make you smile regardless of what she is saying:

I did not change the order or duplicate anything, I just removed the in-between talking parts. You can view the original video here:

YouTube Presents Taylor Swift

From a technical standpoint probably the hardest part was getting the “ums” separated from the surrounding words, due to the fact that often Taylor speaks quickly in this interview, and some of the words ran together. For instance, many of the “and um” combinations kept coming out as “dumb” when I tried to isolate them, although I think in the end I did a decent job of pulling them all out. I did wind up missing a few I just couldn’t get though.

On a side note, I was looking at some of the comments on the original video, and I was shocked to see that there are some downright Taylor Swift haters out there. I honestly don’t get it. I am not referring to the “oh, I really don’t like her music” type of people, but rather people who what I can only assume are completely consumed by self loathing posting some seriously ugly stuff. Just a heads up in case anyone of that genre finds their way here or comments on the original video, I will simply delete anything that appears to be hate driven from the comments. This video is in no way meant to make fun of Taylor. Many people talk this way, and the interviewer was just as bad.

(click to view full sized)

You can click here to view the actual search.

As “pure webspam” has decreased over time, attention has shifted instead to “content farms,” which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. - Matt Cutts

Whoa. This, especially coming from Matt Cutts, is huge. For those who don’t know, “content farms” are organizations that generate websites composed of large amounts of low cost “fluff” or filler content, with little to no regard to quality. The content is generated not based on having information and the desire to share it, but rather in response to queries that might get typed into a search engine, and are built for search spiders rather than human consumption. They include companies like Demand Media, Mahalo, and Associated Content.

Historically speaking, Matt has pretty much refused to come right out and say that these content farms were indeed spam, despite the fact that they clearly violated Google’s quality guidelines:

Doorway pages are typically large sets of poor-quality pages where each page is optimized for a specific keyword or phrase… Google’s aim is to give our users the most valuable and relevant search results. Therefore, we frown on practices that are designed to manipulate search engines and deceive users by directing them to sites other than the ones they selected, and that provide content solely for the benefit of search engines. Google may take action on doorway sites and other sites making use of these deceptive practice, including removing these sites from the Google index. - Google Webmaster Tools Help

Regardless of the very clear wording of their policies, Google has to date not banned any of these content farms for their violations. In fact, quite the opposite – Matt has in the past even defended these sites, and in Mahalo’s case at least given warnings to them which he then allowed them to ignore. He alluded to the fact that one of the algorithm updates from last year, Mayday, was supposed to help filter out “really kind of lower quality” sites, and many people thought he must be talking about content farms back then, but alas that turned out to be a bust. So when he comes right out and says, hey, you’ve waited long enough, now we’re going to target content farms for reals, y’all, then yeah, that’s a Pretty Big Deal.

Now, Richard Rosenblatt, the CEO of Demand Media, may be may be in denial about his company being a content farm, but that definition has existed for quite some time, and regardless of what you call it low quality content built specifically for search engines is in violation of Google’s guidelines. However, he still persists in his belief that as long as you can get some people to call it something else, his “partnership with Google” will keep them protected regardless of what happens:

This is why our partnership with Google makes sense. 1) We help them fill the gaps in their index, where they don’t have quality content. 2) We’re the largest supplier of all video to YouTube, over two billion views and 3) we’re a large AdSense partner. So our relationship is synergistic, and it’s a great partnership. And it’s a partnership that we’re excited to continue to expand. - Richard Rosenblatt, attempting to give Google’s PR team a heart attack

I am guessing that Mr. Rosenblatt missed the section in Matt’s post where he very specifically discussed the fact that no special partnerships would protect the content mills from these changes:

One misconception that we’ve seen in the last few weeks is the idea that Google doesn’t take as strong action on spammy content in our index if those sites are serving Google ads. To be crystal clear:

• Google absolutely takes action on sites that violate our quality guidelines regardless of whether they have ads powered by Google;
• Displaying Google ads does not help a site’s rankings in Google; and
• Buying Google ads does not increase a site’s rankings in Google’s search results.

– Matt Cutts, being crystal clear

Then Friday rolls around, and Matt announces that these changes already happened earlier in the week. If you didn’t notice any changes, then that’s probably because, according to Matt, less than half of a percent of queries would show any perceptible ranking differences. If you didn’t notice any changes in queries involving content farms, well… as near as I can tell that is because there weren’t any. In fact, in his announcement post Matt doesn’t even use the phrase “content farms” at all, and instead only discusses that the net effect of these changes is that in cases where content was scraped, searchers are more likely to see the original content first. He then thanks Jeff Atwood (one of the ones who wrote a story discussing Google’s decline in quality that had a large audience) and Stack Overflow’s team (a site that Jeff co-founded) for their feedback. A few people asked about the omission in the comments, but as of yet anyway Matt has not replied to any of them.

As to the results themselves, for the most part I am seeing what I was seeing before, so that “less than half of a percent” doesn’t surprise me. If you search for [mcdonalds coupons] the #1 site is still a Mahalo page that doesn’t actually have any coupons on it, and very little original content. If you search for [mcdonalds free salad coupons] you get a different Mahalo page that does actually have a picture of a coupon on it (good only in Canada, and expired in July 2010, however), and if you search for [mcdonalds happy meal coupons] the second listing is a Mahalo page, again with no coupons on it. These pages are filled with riveting dialog, such as the section labeled “McDonalds Happy Meal Coupons Coupon Policies,” which states:

The policies for McDonalds Happy Meal coupons may have certain restrictions and these might include not being able to combine discounts or limiting the period of use. Make sure you read and understand the instructions listed on the coupon carefully to ensure that you know when the coupon will become valid and when it will expire as well as what special restrictions apply. Also included in this information will be which product or products the coupon can be used to purchase. Insuring that you understand the coupon policy can help you to avoid any mistakes during the checkout process. - Content Mahalo actually paid for

Seriously?

It’s not just Mahalo, of course… type in [how to reset your blackberry] and you will find ranking just fine a page from eHow that is nothing more than the phrase “hit alt+right-shift+delete” wrapped in light, fluffy filler content. I also still see queries where the duplicate content outranks the original, such as the copy of a Wikipedia page that ranks #1 for [elvett semic]. The changes, whatever they were, truly are barely (if at all) perceptible. The change was so small that one of Matt’s readers asked, “I’m wondering why announce it if you’ve gotten the feedback and the algorithm update would presumably be of such little consequence that no one would likely notice or comment on it unless you told everyone.” Indeed, why make such a big deal out of something when almost no one can tell the difference?

To answer that you need to take a look at exactly what it was that did change. When I search in Google now for questions that were asked on Stack Overflow, at least for the queries I checked, I now see SO ranking instead of sites that scrape their content. This is of course how it should be, and the main concern that the people from that community were bitching giving feedback about to Matt. Stack Overflow is, as I mentioned, the site that was co-founded by Jeff Atwood, who is the author of the much quoted post that generated quite a bit of buzz about Google’s decline in quality. Many of the frequenters of Stack Overflow are also regulars on Hacker News which (not so) coincidentally Matt decided to hold a good portion of the discussion about these changes, both before and after they were implemented. While the HN and SO communities in and of themselves might be tiny compared to the web as a whole, the fact is that their voices do carry within the online community. Start buzz there about Google showing quite a bit of improvement and it has a very good chance of spreading, even if the data set demonstrating that is overall quite small. Add to that the fact that Richard Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media knows that the changes aren’t targeted at his company (and when asked if Google had discussed the changes with him, replies “I can’t comment on that.”), and then toss in Jason Calacanis’s ingratiating comments on Matt’s blog post about the changes going live:

It was clear that Mahalo was getting grouped into the “content farm” space… - Jason Calacanis

No kidding? Really? Past tense there, eh Jason?

So Matt loosely ties the concepts of “content farms” and “scrapers” together in a blog post on the official Google Blog, and claims that they are taking action against them. He then announces a change that appears to only affect scraper sites, and furthermore only those scraping a specific dissatisfied community, publicly thanks that community for their help, and then doesn’t mention the phrase “content farm” again. Even though the changes were practically non-existent, there is a good chance that the overall impression from those who don’t look too closely is that action was indeed taken, and that if what were formerly referred to as content farms are still ranking well, then obviously they must be there for a reason.

From a strategic standpoint it’s actually rather clever. If I were Google and I needed to conceal special relationships I had with companies (especially if I was thinking that the FTC might want to get involved in my business) then I too would probably try very hard to sway the public opinion about the labels attached to the sites those companies owned, and shift the focus to something I could fix without caring about the damage, and then crowd source a tech community to help spread the impression that things were better. Most people probably won’t even pay enough attention to notice.

(click to view original)

Personally, I’d like to see Zedo up its standards for the type of ads it will accept. This type of junk shouldn’t be allowed. - Danny Sullivan

He’s right, too, the ad networks should be policing this type of deception, by all means. Matt Cutts, Google’s head of the web spam team, agrees. He tweeted about the story, and also commented his take on the matter in the post itself:

My favorite part of the disclaimer for those type of sites is “This website, and any page on the website, is based loosely off a true story, but has been modified in multiple ways including, but not limited to: the story, the photos, and the comments.”

Oh, so I can trust the website except for the story, photos, and comments? In other words, the entire website?

And if you read the disclaimer carefully, most of these sites promise a “free trial” with $1.95 in shipping, but actually set your card up with a recurring subscription. The “one weird old tip” ad that I clicked from the L.A. Times mentioned this in the fine print: “If you do not cancel within seven (7) days of the date that you enroll in the Program, we will charge the same card you provided at enrollment the non-refundable one-year membership fee of $149.95″. Then they also start charging you $12.95 a month. Grr. – Matt Cutts, on deceptive “flat belly” ads

Grr, indeed.

Danny also mentions in his post about how “The ad, unlike Google’s ads, doesn’t report what ad network is delivering them,” which if they did would be a form of disclosure. And Danny is right… except for one thing. Danny derived the fact that the ad was being served by Zedo by examining the url. However, if you view the source on the LA Times article and go to the spot on the page where the ad is showing, you don’t see the Zedo ad network code. The ad itself is being generated by Javascript that is being pulled from yet another ad network:

The actual ad network that the LA Times has a relationship with, and the ones responsible for what ads show on their site, is Doubleclick. And who owns Doubeclick, you might ask? As most of you probably already know, Google does, since they bought them back in 2007 for $3.1 billion. So obviously not all of the ads Google delivers disclose what network they are from.

It gets better. AdSense, Google’s flagship advertising network, serves what are known as “contextual ads”, where in theory the ad targeting is based on the context of the page contents where the ad blocks are placed. Danny uses AdSense on his site, with one of the blocks being at the very top of the page. Due to the various feeds in the sidebar, the content of the article, and the title, “Acai Berry” is mentioned 8 times on that same page. Therefore it is only natural, of course, that this is what we see when we look at the ads being served on the top:

(click to enlarge)

Now, can you guess where that ad leads? That’s right:

(click to enlarge)

It’s a fake news site identical to the one Danny is discussing, with the same text, layout, and even images embedded in the “story”, with the only variation being that the one Danny landed on is “News 7″, and this one is “News 8″.

What makes this story particularly interesting is that recently Matt Cutts visited Washington D.C., lobbying the FTC about Google’s integrity, trying to convince them that they don’t require government oversight, and how they could be trusted to police themselves. Google also happens to be in a very unique position to help clean up these kinds of abuses. Not only could they pull these ads from their own vast array of properties, and require their third party partners to do the same, but they could also warn publishers who use networks that continue to promote scams that their sites rankings could suffer, in the same way that they have punished websites in the past for what they said was deceptive marketing, in the form of undisclosed paid links. Instead, they themselves appear to be participating in the problem, not the solution.

So, Matt, are you willing to back up your testimony to the FTC about Google’s integrity, and lobby within your own company to help eradicate deceptive marketing from the web? Do you feel that websites that allow deceptive advertising to be shown on their sites should have their trust revoked?

Does this mean that Google really hates torrent sites? Well, not all of them, apparently. The Pirate Bay, world’s largest bittorrent tracker, is still receiving much love from Google:

(click to enlarge)

How long will this listing last is anyone’s guess, but it is interesting in light of the fact that it is the most notorious of all the torrent sites out there. Kind of odd that this would be the one that they missed in their censorship sweep.

The first place many people would find one of the download links is right in the Google serps, once under the Google Earth sitelinks and once as it’s own listing:

That particular download link, earth.google.com/download-earth.html, is being redirected to what I am guessing is an agreement page, http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html. This, however, returns a 404:

The second place people could normally download Google Earth from would be to go to the Google Earth homepage, which was previously located at earth.google.com, but is now being redirected to http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. There you can find 2 links, one in the left navigation and one as a large blue button with the text “Download Google Earth 5″:

As inviting as that button is, however, it is simply teasing you. Both the link and the button trigger a Javascript function named earth.downloadEarth(). Normally downloading the entire planet would be a huge power trip… today however you get from clicking the button is “Server not found”:

It looks like the reason for this one not working is because someone got sloppy when changing the links from earth.google.com to www.google.com, and simply combined the two into http://earth.googlewww.google.com/intl/en/download-earth.html, although that particular page doesn’t exist on either domain so obviously they messed up more than once. Also, what is even odder, is that the Google Earth packages are also missing from the Ubuntu download repositories:

To have Google Earth not be installable from anywhere seems almost as if there is something deliberate going on. Is Google going to phase out one of it’s cooler applications? Or is something new coming down the pipes from them that will replace it? Only time will tell.

Thanks to Donna Fontenot for discovering this today!