Most of the spam I see in the wild these days is indeed (established) dropped domains which were picked up and then loaded with thousands of pages of "fresh" spun content, with an incestuous backlink profile if any. So indeed 'blogspam'. Everything old is new again; it feels just like twelve years ago. Soon people will be keyword stuffing in a font the same color as the background...
But Google certainly isn't intending to make blogspam a good business to be in, and I'd argue that they aren't; over the past four years Demand Media's stockprice has fallen from $400/share to $4, and the general marketplace for commoditized SEO services has shrunk by a similar degree over the same period. 19 out of every 20 SEOs who were active five years ago have thrown in the towel... just check alexa graphs for the top SEO forums.
The SERPs are clean these days. Google has done an amazing job every year for at least thirteen years now of improving them constantly. The new wave of spam is social. In practice this means Buzzfeed writers stealing user-produced content from AskReddit threads and it ending up polluting my Facebook feed to the point that I can't even find any good counterfeit Raybans.
That's fascinating because I really don't understand it. Maybe I'm just out of touch with SEO, but things like this escape me completely:
"This is because SEOs follow and influence the intent of searchers in the marketplace, while Google’s algorithm (and AI) merely monetizes it."
Where does the extra monetization on page 1 results come from? Unless he's implying that Google provides bad search results so that people will click the ads instead.....
There are numerous ways to interpret that. At a base level, one could look at how the mobile search results are sometimes a screen full of ads, or how in some verticals they are a screen full of ads followed by yet another screen full of ads.
And then there is the knowledge graph & other flavors of scrape-n-displace, which is largely content recycled from elsewhere, given prominent positioning not based on merit or editorial quality, but based on who the publisher (or recycler) is.
Another parallel trend would be the confirmation bias / brand bias factors promoting older and staler sites. Or simplified "take" articles in the mainstream media rather than the original source articles on niche hobbyist blogs and forums or such.
And in taking broad sets of new niche intents and trying to guide those streams of users back down well worn paths. For example, sometimes when you want to find a particular news story about a broad & well-known web platform like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, or Google it can be hard to find sites other than the official site. And on some other longtail queries Google rewrites what is being searched for in a way that brings up some results that don't match the true searcher intent. Probably the best example I can come up with on this front is say you wanted a pair of shoes of a specific brand, size, width, and model number. If they are not the most recent and most heavily marketed versions it can be tough. Auto-generated internal search pages on trusted brand sites rank well, while a small retailer carrying that specific shoe might be penalized by Panda.
But Google certainly isn't intending to make blogspam a good business to be in, and I'd argue that they aren't; over the past four years Demand Media's stockprice has fallen from $400/share to $4, and the general marketplace for commoditized SEO services has shrunk by a similar degree over the same period. 19 out of every 20 SEOs who were active five years ago have thrown in the towel... just check alexa graphs for the top SEO forums.
The SERPs are clean these days. Google has done an amazing job every year for at least thirteen years now of improving them constantly. The new wave of spam is social. In practice this means Buzzfeed writers stealing user-produced content from AskReddit threads and it ending up polluting my Facebook feed to the point that I can't even find any good counterfeit Raybans.