(21)
Kaspar Szymanski, a Search Quality Strategist at Google, tweeted yesterday that Google reserves the right to take action on all the sites on a server or at a hosting company if they feel the host is massively spammy.
His tweet read:
if freehosts appear 2b massively spammed #Google reserves the right 2take action on the entire site
This comes in response to a Polish Google Webmaster Help thread where one site owner was complaining his site wasn't ranking well. My polish is not existant at all, so I'll use Google Translate to translate Kaspar's response:
if freehost is very zaspamowany , sometimes exclude him from the entire Google index. Such cases occur not often .
Of course, this is not new. Google has said in the past that they can ban all the sites on a host if the an unusual percentage of sites on that server or host are incredibly spammy. So it has happened and has been discussed, I believe in conferences. But I have never seen a Googler say it in response to a complaint about why his site is not ranking in a public Google help forum.
Forum discussion at Polish Google Webmaster Help.
Comments:
Jon Payne
05/25/2011 01:04 pm
Perhaps the best thing about this story is that 'zaspamowany' appears to be Polish for 'spammy'. Of course, the whole subject is interesting and useful, but I love that Polish word! I am going to start using zaspamowany at every available opportunity...
Ionut Alexandru Popa
05/25/2011 01:19 pm
I don't mind Google doing that, but I do mind not telling the affected collateral sites they are being penalized/banned so that they can move to another host
Faust1
05/25/2011 01:50 pm
i think thats not fair to ban all sites at one once ... why do people kill thousands to punish one bad apple ? its the same as US doing war on iraq or afghanistan killing millions to capture a few rotten apples ....
Marta Gryszko
05/25/2011 02:34 pm
"My polish is not existant at all, so I'll use Google Translate to translate Kaspar's response" What Kaspar said at a Polish forum is nearly the same with what he tweeted. "jeżeli freehost jest bardzo zaspamowany, niekiedy wykluczamy go całego z indeksu Google. Takie przypadki zdarzają się nie często." means: "if a freehost is very spammy, we sometimes exclude it from the whole Google index. Such situations don't happen too often." It was the answer to the user who enables creating subdomains on his domain. According to what he said, even though a lot of users verify themselves as the ownes of such subdomains (also by adding a DNS record to the domain's configuration), he's the one who always gets all messages from Google that concern them.
Nick Stamoulis
05/25/2011 03:01 pm
It goes to show that site owners have to be aware of a lot more than just their own site. Even if you run a legitimate website, aligning yourself with the ones that Google considers "spammers" is a fast track to nowhere. You become guilty by association.
Jonathon Hewitt
05/25/2011 03:13 pm
I think someone might notice if NONE of the sites hosted on their server were getting ANY referral traffic from Google's search engine results pages. I believe Google is just trying to train people to get in the habit of working on quality instead of trying to penetrate their search results with spam.
googleamonopoly
05/25/2011 04:22 pm
Imagine this, Google complains loudly about mass takedowns like the US government has done recently for piracy and counterfeit items. Google says it will fight such heavy handed intrusions even if they are made law. Then in contrast, we have Google mass banning perhaps thousands or more websites because they are behind the same IP and because there were some bad actors back behind the curtain. Don't these two issues clearly show Google is full of itself and disagrees with - itself? Hands of the internet government. Google thinks it is the government of the internet.
Pinyo
05/25/2011 04:35 pm
Google. Here's one for you: Blogspot.com
shpyo
05/25/2011 06:25 pm
I see, that Kaspar consused seo world. He's better that Matt :)
Daisylinkpopularity
05/26/2011 06:54 am
Google always update for server management
Uncle Demotivator
05/26/2011 07:10 am
Haha - touché!
Search Ramble
05/26/2011 09:21 am
something unfair.. :|
essay
05/26/2011 10:38 am
screepy! :(
Rob Abdul
05/26/2011 11:15 am
That is like being on a flight where one of two of the passengers are being disruptive; the resulting action being everyone on the flight is thrown off the flight. I thought Google employ the smartest minds. There must be an alternative?
Kent
05/26/2011 12:15 pm
I believe we better for go dedicated server rather than shared server, otherwise, we will be victim for mistakes that we don't make.
outsolveaap
05/26/2011 01:37 pm
Can anyone provide a list of some spammy hosting providers or providers that Google may view as low quality?
rollinhand
05/26/2011 07:35 pm
Google does not take action on shared or hosted servers that are spamming in my experience. Even when presented with very detailed lists of spammers and their spam networks. The hosting companies do a much better job shutting down spammers then Google. Well, unless we are talking about Ovh Systems.
chris
05/27/2011 05:36 am
I agree with googles 'words' here. How are they going to be able to police a specific site on a shared server?
Audio converter guy Ameer
07/03/2011 10:17 am
Google now banned the whole co.cc domain http://searchengineland.com/google-delists-all-co-cc-domains-from-index-83931 .
lifebiz
07/05/2011 10:48 am
as the biggest search engine, Google do has the right and the polish to take more action after that.
venomseo
07/05/2011 06:58 pm
True, but what about good .CO.CC websites? I had a good quality website, and now i'm waiting to be inserted again in index and so far nothing...