@webcentric

Umm... they are a Google rep. Don't think they are link dropping.

I can see that. And I understand that posting to various help resources is allowed here. Still, and because this is a Google rep promoting Google products in a seemingly helpful way that isn't all that helpful (IMHO), I'd like an explanation of what comment spam, link dropping, social media spam, etc, is and until I get a rational, clear explanation, I'm free to call something spam just as easily as Google can. I'm also capable of determining usefulness (maybe even better than a bot, who knows) and I find vague terminology, useless.

Oh, and...

...what Sheqel said...works smartly.

Hi webcentric -

The area you're asking about is a little off-topic from this particular thread, but I'll try and answer as best I can.

The types of spam you are asking about are analogous to email spam, but are through social media products and networks.

Unfortunately the implementations of this type of spam change as social media products change, so I think a good rule of thumb can be found by searching for topics like "social spam" and "spam in blogs" (there are numerous Wikipedia entries on these topics) to get a better idea of what is generally considered spam in these areas.

Since this information is found under the "New traffic acquisition > Advertising" sections in the resource center, we want to make sure that publishers are not use spam techniques to attract users to their websites. This provides a more positive user experience and does not promote spam content in and around the web.

Hope that helps!
John

my my my... somebody got up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning...

Just saying, we b!tch all the time that AdSense won't talk to us, and when they do - we take their head off. Does not encourage further interaction is all I am saying. ;)

Can all you like... just mystified at the reply in the first place which is shy of data and short on confidence. I remain, as usual, unimpressed. Secondary, why does google take upon themselves to be the spam keepers? Do they deem the average user.advertiser so stupid they can't do it themselves?

Yes, my comments were off topic so thanks incredibill for putting me in my place and yes, whatever rolled through the SERPS overnight left me grumpy. That said, it's been a beautiful day but I'm still no closer to understanding what social media spam is. My Facebook business page is all about what my main website is about. I post with links to my site regularly, people share those posts, all I want to know is, am I a social media spammer in Google's eyes? I do the same thing with Pinterest. It's what I call marketing, communicating with an audience. I'm tired of living in paranoia, worried about how I advertise my services and information because the Adsense team or the Search team might slap me for some violation of a protocol they won't even define clearly.

@hannamyluv - Yes, I thought fairly hard before posting that post for the reason you stated and, again, I'm sorry for jerking that thread off topic. I've already read so many ambiguous Google help files now though that when a human shows up from Google and points me at another, when they could actually just say something very clearly in response to the OP's question, it smacked to me of self-promotion. And of all the things a rep could address in this forum, the answer instead seemed pointed in a great many directions over and above the original question and seemed very targeted toward a specific piece of company line G wants in the public eye. Call it a gut reaction. Felt like spam to me. I'd welcome an open and honest conversation with anyone at Google. There's no need for hostility. But marketing to me isn't the same as having a conversation with me. Don't give me vague terminology and call it a basis for understanding.

@AdTrafficQuality -- "we want to make sure that publishers are not use spam techniques to attract users to their websites"

Google has created an environment where webmasters are afraid to use the most fundamental component of the Hypertext Markup Language for its intended purpose. Hyperlinking is how John and Jane Doe were able to discover the world through Cyberspace in the first place but now it's some sort of sin called spam with no clear definition or dividing line between what is acceptable and what is not. Pay to plaster your message from one end of the Internet to the other (often called advertising) and it's perfectly fine. Find a way to get your message out for free and it's a crime of some sort called spam. You must understand the frustration I'm sure many could express here at some level.

I can think of at least a dozen kinds of social media spam, twitter fake followers, bots tweeting links, fake facebook likes, link drops, blog comment spam, affiliate or other ads links hidden in pinterest pins, and at least half a dozen separate ways to spam LinkedIn. Whatever social networking the mind can invent, a thousand other minds can find ways to spam the sh*t out of it.

I think netmeg hit on why the terminology is so vague. Because people are so creative. If G pins it down and defines it, within weeks there will be people pushing the boundaries and finding the loop holes and screaming foul when that gets clamped down on too.

Any email containing a hyperlink is considered spam by mail filters at Hotmail and other popular free mail services. We also have problems with Gmail... some members continually finding their password reminders in their spam folder.

So, then, is it the consensus here that posting regular posts to my own FB page for example, linking back to various areas of my site is not spam? Perhaps defining the allowable use of social media would be a better approach. Right now, the message I'm getting is

"don't use social media to promote your own stuff because there's something called social media spam and anything you do could be construed as such."

don't use social media to promote your own stuff because there's something called social media spam and anything you do could be construed as such.

Did you have something happen where they indicated this was a problem?

My own definition of "social media spam" would be the same as "comment spam" but on a social media platform. Going to dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people's (or business) pages and off-topic commenting a link to your site.

But I can see the confusion... Without a clear definition of {flavor} spam webmasters and marketers are left to risk their livelihood on a guess.

Without a clear definition of {flavor} spam webmasters and marketers are left to risk their livelihood on a guess.

Well said.

Did you have something happen where they indicated this was a problem?

Google has never indicated to me that I've ever done anything wrong on any front but I have seen rankings tank in the past and then come back after various actions or no action at all. I'm constantly developing though, trying to improve my product, expanding, organizing, publishing and, these days, using social media more intensely. The FUD surrounding this game has always been enough to keep me on the straight and narrow (no comment spam even when I probably would have been rewarded for it, no email campaigns, etc). Just plain old website building that has a way of attracting quality links (and some junk as well) all on it's own. I've long recognized the need to diversify traffic sources and am working on that (specifically with social media these days). Call me careful, paranoid or whatever but when G says they don't like social media spam and could penalize me for it, I'd like to know what it is so I can stay away from it.

Call me careful, paranoid or whatever but when G says they don't like social media spam and could penalize me for it, I'd like to know what it is so I can stay away from it.

You are showing your youth.

This is the game we have always played with Google (and every search engine that has come before it or *kinda* after it). Your quandary is as old as SEO (and now other related services).

The FUD surrounding this game has always been enough to keep me on the straight and narrow

Then G has accomplished its goal.

even when I probably would have been rewarded for it

Yeah, ask those affected by Penguin how that worked out. That worked for a really long time. Until it didn't.

This is not just websites. This is life. There are lots and lots of brick and mortar things that will get you rich in the short term. A cheat here, a blind eye turned there. Some people neck deep in it get away with it and never get caught. While others pay terrible consequences. And still others who only edged around those things get nailed to a wall for it.

Google is no different than your friendly neighborhood government or god. They aren't going to tell you the hard line on the rules because if they do, the @$$holes of the world will exploit it for all it's worth.

This is the very basis for business ethics. How far do you want to push the rules to make a buck?

I personally don't anymore. And really, it is because I kinda suck at pushing the boundaries. I just don't have the stomach or the balls to do it well. My end game these days is if what I did makes me proud, I did good.

If you are trying to make G happy, you have to realize that you are serving a fickle god. If that is your goal, follow the rules to the best of your interpretation. But you cannot expect any more than that from G.

This is a case where "use your common sense" always works for me.

My end game these days is if what I did makes me proud, I did good.

If you are trying to make G happy, you have to realize that you are serving a fickle god.

Your first quote is what drives my decisions in business. Do I lack a killer instinct? Perhaps but at the same time, not really. I'd gladly step over a Microsoft or a Google or a devious competitor to accomplish my goals (which I believe are based on strong business and community ethics). Throw ethics out the window and you're fair game in my book. I just won't stomp on honest people to get what I want.

Perhaps my questions seems subservient where G is concerned. In reality, Google is not the subject of my end-game and I don't believe Google is necessary to accomplish it, it's just one facet of a larger picture and I pick at the details of that facet just like I do many others.

You are showing your youth.

:) I wish but thanks for saying so. Just because I never got on board and tried manipulating the SERPS, doesn't mean I was born yesterday or just became aware of the game. 15 years ago, I had the same attitude and in those 15 years it hasn't changed. I've never had to game anything to succeed and I'm not about to start now. It's just that the penalty system is far more dramatic these days so I'm interested in keeping away from it when possible. Honest work, obtaining honest links and being fairly open about my strategies may never make me a millionaire but I sleep OK and that's the important thing in my estimation.

Bottom line. My work on the web has always been about trying to level the playing field for the small guy/gal. It's been a decade of constant battle with plenty of ups and its downs. Let the gods of SEO make their millions. I'm happy if I can just do my best, help others along the way and make enough to keep the servers up and running, food on the table and a roof over my head (and maybe a little for my retirement). I don't think that's really too much to ask but I also don't expect anyone to hand it to me either. ;)

I do find many of the insights on this site helpful and enjoy an occasional philosophical discussion when it presents itself.

hannamyluv - your feedback is always appreciated here. Never a dull point. :)