Comments on: PhraseRank, Not PageRank, To Fight Search Spam

By: MondoTofu

MondoTofu — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:23:33 +0000

somehow I’m reminded of the long-running comic in the pages of Mad Magazine, “Spy vs. Spy” but I don’t recall either character applying for a patent for their counter-measures, even when vanquishing their foe in the final frame.

By: Bill Slawski

Bill Slawski — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:02:42 +0000

Good points. I think sometimes the battle against spam is an incremental one, in which the gains aren’t going to be measured in defeating it completely, overnight. Rather, it’s demise might be by making the cost of spamming computationally more expensive, and more difficult.

Regardless, it potentially has a number of other benefits in addition to acting as a spam filter, and it doesn’t replace existing indexing and relevancy methods, but rather adds a layer on top of them.

By: Halfdeck

Halfdeck — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:16:15 +0000

It wouldn’t be hard for spammers to beat this filter by throwing varying degrees of related phrases – eventually something will stick. Also, by having a few test pages up, spammers will be able to detect when this filter is toned down or cranked up, and adjust accordingly.

By: Bill Slawski

Bill Slawski — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:42:08 +0000

Hi Search Engines WEB,
You wouldn’t say that these patents might be influenced by something like the Graham Spencer penned System and method for accelerated query evaluation of very large full-text databases, which allows for phrase-based indexing within a separate cache? Probably a coincidence that Graham Spencer now works for Google, but kind of fun to see.

You’re having too much fun, Michael, trying to hone in on the creation of new buzzwords for the industry. It’s hard enough that folks might think that the “page” in pagerank has something to do with “pages” instead of being taken from it’s inventor’s name.

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 20:21:25 +0000

On a more serious note, let me resurrect the ancient concept of “power keyword optimization” (which I neither coined nor had any part in defining or popularizing). The old PKO concept could be summed thusly (with respect to the KEYWORDS meta tag):

Given that you may want to optimize for “michael martinez”, “michael martinez blows”, and “blows me down”, you could define a meta tag value of “michael martinez blows me down” and it would cover all those ideas.

So, I propose we refer to the coming swarm of hyperoptimization techniques as “Search Phrase Operation”.

Or SPO.

You could then have Search Phrase Optimization Techniques (SPOTs), Search Phrase Over Optimization Networks (SPOONs), Search Phrase Optimization Keyword Engines (SPOKEs), and Search Phrase Optimization Indexing Lexicons (SPOILs).

SPOTs, SPOONs, SPOKEs, and SPOILs will soon become the popular SEO buzzwords, displacing “quality links”, “relevant backlinks”, and “my pages are highly optimized with a PR of 7 but they don’t appear in Google”.

By: Rose Water

Rose Water — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:23:25 +0000

Hey, search engines web, that unige.ch page would be considered a sitemap with 242 links.

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:48:51 +0000

“PhraseRank” is a bad label to pin on this donkey, in my opinion. “PhraseMetric Filtration” might work better, but I doubt it has the buzz or zing value that SEOs will want to use. Given that so many SEOs now wrongly apply “TrustRank” (a Yahoo!-coined phrase) to Google’s trust filtering, and “Latent Semantic Indexing” to Google’s non-semantic indexing, it’s almost certain they’l adopt the erroneous PhraseRank (after all, this is not rocket science — it’s just SEO).

Still, I propose that we open the floor for nominations for more accurate labels to describe what these patents portend.

Here are a few suggestions to kick off the list:

“Latent Phrasic Symbology”

“InterPhrase Pseudo-Semantic Analysis”

“PostPhrasal Spam Syndrome”

“PhraseGraphic Filtering”

“PhraseToponymy”

“Phrase-based Filtering”

“Phrase Index Scoring”

“Phrase: Got Spam?”

By: ★ ★ Search Engines WEB ★ ★

★ ★ Search Engines WEB ★ ★ — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:00:50 +0000

_____________________________________________

This patent is basically an advanced branch of CONCEPT SEARCHING (remember EXCITE) – and fundamentally, is already being used to some extent is some legal search applications.

However, it is possible, that classic sites like this:
cuiwww.unige.ch/meta-index.html
(which, for years, until recently, has been in the top 20 on Google for the term SEARCH ENGINES) would be seen as spammy.

There will also be false positives with this method, only because of aggressive SEOing or extremely information-packed homepages. Or the aggressive use of synonyms or acronyms to cover all basis. Also, those who write in a taxonomy style (just using keywords without stop words) will suffer!!!!!!!

However, if this method is used in balance with link popularity and popularity links, it would be worth evaluating the SERPs.

But it must be remembered that, the new priority of search engines ALGOs – analyzing the anchor text/ back links from high trust ranked sites, makes it now nearly impossible for those honeypot sites to get high on the SERPs.

Most searchers do not use complex search terms – so many no longer get spam sites to the degree they would have gotten a few years ago,
And for those who do use complex terms, usually reference sites come up first. Poor sites usually remain near the bottom 900 – 1000 end of the serps

if Google does buy into this, the so-called bad phrases sites might go into the supplimental listings.