Slashdot Mirror


'Online Poker' Googlebomb

Philipp Lenssen writes "The blogger community is fighting back, though in ways not everyone may like: they are Googlebombing the Wikipedia page on online poker for the phrase "online poker" to make it rank higher in search engines. "Online poker", along with "Viagra", "mortgage" and "debt", are keywords heavily represented in comment spam, which itself aims to boost the Google ranking for a particular site and phrase. The Wikipedia page is currently third in Google."

16 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. I don't understand by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they think that if they make the Wiki ONLINE POKER page #1 that nobody will go to the other 9 online poker page results returned by Google on the same page?

    It don' make no sense!

    1. Re:I don't understand by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think the first link said it about right:
      This stunt actually will increase blog spam volume for online poker in order for the spammers to compete with the wiki, also it has expanded the number of people trying to spam wiki pages and it will reinvigorate general blog spam for publicizing the fact that blog spamming still works.
      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  2. I'm feeling lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It goes to #1.

  3. Pointless by Superfreaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google Bombing is used to get your one page higher, it doesn't do anything to the other sites' ranking except to the single site you may displace off the top 10 results.

  4. Uh, why? by EvilStein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, I read the article. This seems to be a "fight fire with fire" solution and is probably just going to make things worse.

    The stupid online poker comment spam *is* annoying, yes, but is Googlebombing Wikipedia really a viable solution?

    The Wiki didn't come up 3rd when I looked a few minutes ago (it was 5th) and doesn't Google specifically say "Don't do stuff like this!" in their help documentation?
    I hope this doesn't backfire.

  5. two wrongs makes a right? by mcguyver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't see this as a good thing.
    1. Blog spammers will fight back at blogs - mostly innocient people who have nothing to do with this war.
    2. Blog spam can get wikipedia in trouble by violating Google's guildelines.
    3. The recent nofollow tag attribue will dimish the value of blog spam.

  6. I am all of these online casino bastards to die... by AdityaG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but how the hell does this help? The online casino people are still going to spam your blog. Just because one link out of the 31 million pages wont deter a user. There are paid ads anyways. This is a waste of time if you ask me. A better way to combat this would be to come together to maybe come up with a plugin or hack to have a 100% system against spam.
    So the online casinos would be forced to stop auto spamming people.

    Of course this trouble will never end if these companies have like little gnomes manually spamming blog/blog rings.

  7. Re:You submitted this... by Worminater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If someone searches for online poker; they probably want to play online poker, which is what the wiki page is displacing. BUT the fact that its only 1 page that leaves 9 others on top, as the article said; would just cause the one spammer who is knocked off the front page to spam that much more; which will cause the other spammers to spam more to keep on the front page.... It just seems pointless:p Someone is laughing here

  8. Some clever bastard.... by merreborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...has appearantly linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_poker to "autofellatio.jpg". Wikipedia was a bad choice, what with the inherent ability for *anyone* to alter the page.

  9. Simple solution to Googlebombing. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Is Google doing anything to stop Google bombing?"

    I detailed this elsewhere. All Google has to do is add a filter to its results so that pages that do not actually contain the search word/phrases do NOT show up in result lists.

    This used to be standard search-engine behaviour, and because of this, results used to be a lot more accurate (unless they were merely outdated, but even in this case, the results were accurate at one time!).

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  10. Re:Google [ play online poker ] by Worminater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which brings up the point of Why?

    Just clickthrough for wikipedia and its favored poker sites?

  11. Greedy abuse of Wikipedia by shanen · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well, I can't help but make the obvious observation that it's another example of sad greedy bastards trying to exploit other people's good will. Dare I say "intuititively obvious to the most casual observer". The online poker page itself is nothing but a obvious scam in search of more free advertising, and it should be permanently deleted from Wikipedia. The only point of gambling is that it's a tax for being bad at math, and all the repackaging is just various disguises for the essential exploitation of very simple behaviorism. Random reinforcement is the best, and most resistant to extinction.

    Again I say "sad". I vote to delete--except that that's pointless, too. The people who want to sucker other people via online gambling are of course much more strongly motivated than people like I am. I'm just annoyed. They're dreaming of striking it rich, if only they can find enough suckers fast enough.

    Anyway, the Wikipedia deletion process was too difficult to figure out.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  12. Re:Googlebombing is part of Google's design flaw. by ikkonoishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Results 1 - 10 of about 773,000 for "to be or not to be". . (0.14 seconds)

    Shakespeare - To be, or not to be: that is the question... William Shakespeare - To be, or not to be (from Hamlet 3/1). To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The ...
    www.artofeurope.com/shakespeare/sha8.htm - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

    To BE or Not to BE, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love ...All you ever wanted to know about barium enemas but were afraid to ask from the webisite for adults, married adults that is.
    marriedadults.com/bariumenema.php - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

    To Be or Not to Be (1942)To Be or Not to Be - Cast, Crew, Reviews, Plot Summary, Comments, Discussion, Taglines, Trailers, Posters, Photos, Showtimes, Link to Official Site, ...
    www.imdb.com/title/tt0035446/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

    Amazon.com: DVD: To Be Or Not to Be (1942)To Be Or Not to Be, Ernst Lubitsch, Carole Lombard, Jack Benny, Robert Stack, Felix Bressart, Lionel Atwill, Stanley Ridges, Sig Ruman, Tom Dugan, ...
    www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/B0006Z2KYI?v=glance - 76k - Cached - Similar pages


    Where is the -1 Patently False moderation tag when you need it?

    The reason http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=to+be+or+not+ to+be doesn't work is that because...

    The following words are very common and were not included in your search: to be to be. [details]
    Lowercase "or" was ignored. Try "OR" to search for either of two terms. [details]


    So all that google sees is "not"
  13. Re:Google [ play online poker ] by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, most spam gets sent for SUCCESSFUL online enterprises. TONS of people play poker online, and they give MASSIVE referral bonuses to websites who can generate new players ($65 a pop!) - because competition for new players and site-loyalty is so high. Most casual players pick one site and stick with it.

    It's NOT because nobody wants to play.

  14. Need to fill more than one slot! by shogun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you really want to thwawt the link spammers, what you need to do is make sure 9 other wikipedia pages also get well linked for the phrase 'online poker', thereby meaning there are no [profitable] spammed linked on the front page of google results.. The pages 'online' and 'poker' would be a good start..

  15. brain dead morons by grozzie2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    [rant on]
    Problem:- the bloggers leave pages open to the public, that anybody can modify, and they get spammed by the poker places.

    Solution:- Spam google, so that the highest ranked page on the net for 'online poker' is, you guessed it, a user modifiable page, hosted somewhere else. They have made the wikipedia page the most valuable real-estate on the net regarding the given search term, so, now it's wikipdeia's problem, that page is going to be target of constant spam/attack/redirect attempts.

    I would have thought the blog types would understand, and target a static page, where this is not a problem. No, they gotta take the problem from thier insignificant little nothing sites, and turn it into a major problem for one of the most significant sites on the internet. Way to go assholes, what a wonderful way to cause a huge amount of problems for a very valuable net resource, that's done nothing to cause problems for your precious 'blog community'.

    There is a reason that most folks find the rantings in blogspace a total waste of otherwise useful bandwidth, this is yet another good example. Only the selfish shortsighted stupidity of the blog community would come up with the idea of solving thier problem, by making a wikipedia problem instead.

    That's about as smart as an anvil folks, and it's this kind of stupidity that causes most of the world to view blogspace as wasted space. Whoever came up with the idea of google-bombing the term 'online poker' with a wikipedia page, should be taken out back and strung up. Didn't a single one of the bloggers in question have enough intelligence to figure out how big of a problem this is going to create? Now that wikipedia is in the top page, every poker spammer in the world is going to be trying to hijack that page. Are bloggers in general really this dumb ?

    [rant off]