Jan 13, 2009 at 5:32pm ET by Matt McGee
Following up on his call last week for help identifying spam issues Google should address in 2009, Matt Cutts today is asking for specific help identifying what he calls “empty review sites” or “no results pages.” That problem was mentioned most often in the public feedback from last week’s post.
An empty review site, or “no results page,” might be something like this screenshot below, which is one of the top 10 results on a Google search for [sd880is reviews]:

In today’s blog post, Matt says pages like this might run afoul of Google’s webmaster guidelines, and gives specific instructions for reporting this kind of page to Google’s spam team.
Share, Bookmark & Discuss This Article
More:
Keep Updated: News Via Email | News Via RSS Feed | News Via Twitter
See more stories like this in the Members Library! Check out the Google: SEO, Google: Web Search, Google: Webmaster Central, SEO: Spamming sections of the Members Library where this story is filed. Members also get access to exclusive video content, a members-only weekly & monthly newsletter, plus more. Check out all the benefits!
TOP STORIES
SEARCH NEWS BRIEFS
FEATURES & ANALYSIS
RECENT COMMENTS
Stay on top of all the search news with our daily summary, the SearchCap newsletter. View a sample ›
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
SMX Web Site » | SMX Difference » | SMX News »
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Featured sites from our Blogroll
Become a premium member today and receive:
Am I right in thinking that Google is admitting here that they are not able to discern quality content?
They tell us to build quality pages, then go and rank pages based to a great extent on popularity, and now they’re asking us for a hand weeding out low grade pages.
Am I the only one that thinks this is ironic?
They’ve got enough money. If they pay me, I’ll do their hand editing and cover the shortcomings of their algorithm.
Why focus on reviews of consumer junk anyway? I would prefer a move that deranks crappy Wikipedia pages and puts articles of greater merit above them in the SERPs.