Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
In the battle to get real-time results into search engines, there's one business that stands to benefit a lot: spam. It's simply a fact of social life online that as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and others all struggle to provide the most relevant up to the second information, they are ceding quality control of results.
And that's only natural. Search engines have to relax their algorithms to get the most current information, which makes it exceedingly easy for spammers to win a spot at the top of search results pages. And as spamming gets easier for hackers, it also gets harder for digital marketers to get their results up on the page. Is there anything to be done about it?
The short answer is no. Spam now accounts for 88% of all emails, and Symantec's MessageLabs division has detected and blocked 2,465 newly compromised websites per day this year, up nearly 8% from 2,290 in 2008. According to Cisco's 2009 Annual Security Report released last week, social media presents an increasingy high security risk because consumers trust information sent from friends more than other links.
"It's simple to attach spam or a link to a corrupted website... Tainted posts moving quickly and intermittently into search results could be very hard to filter.... It's an entirely new cat-and-mouse game."
Web surfers are becoming more adept at avoiding traditional spam — they are increasingly wary of banking sites and unbelievable offers delivered to their email inboxes. But in social media, clicking on links from unknown users is increasingly common.
The standard Google algorithm screens web pages for spam before including them in the top of results, but real-time search puts new and topical content at a priority.
The benefits of real-time information bring with them increased risks. Trending search terms are important as they're happening, where they're coming from does not matter as much.
From a user perspective, high levels of spam may be easy to ignore in real-time data. If search engines can figure out how to filter out irrelevant results, great. But users understand that getting the most current data currently involves receiving some less useful information as well.
For spammers, thaat means the benefits are high. Getting into the top of Google's search results — albeit briefly — can be a huge win with little effort expended.
Marissa Mayer, Vice President of Search Products at Google, has faith in real time search, but admitted to TechCrunch that returning relevant results is harder in real-time:
"We can’t simply apply the PageRank algorithm to content shared in real time, but we look at the ecosystem and detect signals we can use to reveal authority, for instance. It’s difficult, but there are data points out there that can be used for filtering."
That said, she said she trusts real-time results “most of the time,” even if they don't come from friends in her social network.
However, the service could have real costs for brands. Some think real-time will lead to more spending on PPC campaigns by marketers. According to High Position:
"A simply constructed file, an authoritative landing page and a Twitter account is supposedly all it takes for spammers to get the upper hand; which means that the SEO industry may have to rely more heavily on PPC campaigns to produce consistent results, as the ability to produce authoritative organic results lessens."
And the newness of real-time search is one guarantee that spammers will run rampant on the service for awhile. As Dave Snyder puts it at Search Engine Journal:
"Seriously, any new feature that Google rolls out is a playground for SPAM. My head is spinning thinking of all the cool/evil implications of the service. I am sure lots of people are going to be testing how Google is choosing the results coming in the box. Some people might ask the importance of coming up for a mere moment in that position, but the sheer amount of traffic generated for a trending term can make even a 30 second window profitable."
While Google may benefit from marketers spending more money to show up higher in results now that Twitter (and spam) occupy more real estate on the search results, in the long term it is in the search giant's best interest to return the most relevant results for users. Or it will be replaced by an engine that masters that better.
Consumers are likely to become more savvy when it comes to social spam. And while it will be another irritation for digital marketers, it is likely here to stay. As as long as real-time spam remains profitable, it will continue to exist.