Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo

Google Reminds Me Of The Irs


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 03:48 AM

Google reminds me of the IRS. What do you think?

#2 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 6,771 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 14 April 2012 - 09:51 AM

Not especially,

Google are there for their USERS, which means the searchers and advertisers NOT webmasters and marketers. It all is much simpler when you work WITH Google by providing what Google really want. Which is the best documents/pages/URIs to show to their users rather than a document that has been artificially created and/or manipulated to APPEAR as if it is the best one.

The adage is "Work smarter NOT harder".

#3 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,911 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

The IRS collects taxes and Google helps people find what they're looking for online (as well as being an advertising medium).


I don't see the connection.

#4 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 08:18 PM

If it were a perfect world and the IRS hired perfect employees, they would be customer service oriented and willing to help the taxpayer, their client, file their taxes correctly so as to avoid a bad result upon audit. Rather, they will not discuss the law and how it applies to a taxpayer unless you are under audit or you sue them in tax court. Moreover, the law is so complicated, that most IRS personnel can't understand it or correctly apply it. Many of the agents will intimidate their way to large assessments, rather than correctly apply the law, as they are rated on their ability to recover taxes and it's easier than learning the law.

Now the parallel to Google.

Google audits sites and penalizes them just as the IRS does to taxpayers.

Neither will Google be clear as to what their rules are. To make matters worse, they may decide tomorrow that they won't allow a practice that has existed for many years and they have commented that it's O.K. Because their Quality Guidelines are so vague, they can change direction to meet their business objectives at any time and the path to their increased revenues is to penalize perfectly honest businesses in order to achieve their success -- to hell with the collateral damage. Google will not establish specific rules because it would prevent them from sacrificing users in order to make money -- they would have to care about their customers (the searcher), publishers (mostly information sites) and users (businesses that offer products that people want and need and that attract people to Google so Google can sell their products).

Actually, the IRS is more honest. At least they have an appeals process and, if they won't tell you how you violate the law, the appeals officer will dismiss the claim, as will the courts.

There is no appeals process with Google and most of the time they won't even tell you when or what -- shoot first and refuse to answer questions later. They have a "sue me if you don't like it" attitude.

So Google is building their brand and the way that I and 1,000's of others see it, the IRS has a better Brand image than Google. Sad state of affairs Google.

One day Google won't control the whole game and there will be a backlash. They will wish that they had taken some of the Billions! of dollars they earned and invested them in customer service to clearly disseminate the rules and assist users in meeting them.

And remember, all the while, Google regularly violates their own rules.

I'm reminded of Blockbuster Video. You could take back a video late and the late fees might be 3 x the cost to purchase it. Their attitude was, "Well, you should have bought it." Now they're bankrupt, even after they undercut Netfilx. I'd rather pay Netflix 3 x the Blockbuster fee than give Blockbuster the money. One day this will be Google's fate.

Here's a good example of Google's handy work -- http://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/NJgHT_GPMMQ

Out of the millions of dollars Google makes every year, they can't even tell the poor guy what their position is? Tell me where in the Quality Guidelines his question is answered. It's not, except in vaguaries that could be interpreted many different ways.

@chrishirst It's hard to give Google what it wants when they won't tell you what their rules are. Worse yet, they won't do it out of greed -- they want to be able to change the rules whenever a profit opportunity presents itself, without having to deal with a backlash from users pointing to the rules.

Google wants people to publish relevant content that will be of high appeal. Aaron Wall at SEOBook said it best -- the error in Google's business model is most smalll businesses aren't relevant. However, they do provide products and services that people want and/or need. If I sell washers for faucets, it's not excting -- nothing to write home about -- but, people go on the internet to buy them when their faucet leaks which creates an opportunity for Google. It's in Google's best interest to help the small mom and pop business succeed. Or do you think they want them to crash and burn so they can't rank Organically and they have to buy Google's AdWords Express product? Hmmmmmmmmm.......

For years Google has been trying to sell PPC to small business owners -- the market is huge! They have failed miserably and sometimes have used very sleazy methods to try to succeed.

They want these Local products to move and they are willing to do anything to anybody to get them to move.

@chrishirst Wait until one day your site is collateral damage in Google's war on "Affiliates and SEO's" and Google won't even communicate with you as to why they think you're outside their Quality Guidlines. You won't be so quick to say you just have to give Google what it wants then.

Many of these people are just honest, small businesses trying to make a living. They get nothing but threats and uncertainty from Google. Google will turn on them in a minute if Google can make a buck. Google needs to get out of the way and let them market their businesses. Marketing should be the order of the day, not publishing for Google. Let small businesses go to work marketing themselves and the publishing will take care of itself.

That is, if Google will stop running PPC ads for Viagra, Porn and Get Rich Quick Scams to pad their profits.

I'm not using Google's products any more and I'd rather sell door to door than pay them one penny in PPC or AdWords Express fees.

I and 1,000's of others are "Mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." I recommend people boycott Google. There are plenty of opportunities to advertise on other Media Networks that care about your business. Don't buy any products from Google and focus only on Organic. After all, back in 2008, Jupiter Research said -- 87% of all search clicks come from Organic Search, not pay per click ads. That means that 7 x more clicks come from Organic. Boycott Google -- The only power we have is the power of the purse, use it!

There, I feel better now.

Edited by ChuckFinley, 14 April 2012 - 08:31 PM.


#5 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,911 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 09:52 PM

I could not disagree more with the above.

Chuck, the basic flaw in your premise is that website owners are not google's customers (for organic search). Their clients are the searchers. So they owe the website owners nothing, and rightly so.

I also disagree that today's optimization is tomorrow's spam. I wrote about that somewhere but am on iPad tonight and don't feel like looking for it!

#6 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:40 AM

Without the website owners, the searchers have no reason to come and Google has no business. Alienate enough website owners for long enough and they will take the first viable option that comes along, much like my Blockbuster Video example above.

Google is evil!

If Google wants to do this kind of thing (mass penalties), they should publish their intent to take action for, say, 6 months in advance. They should explain what their rules are and how they apply during that 6 month period. Then if people don't change, at least they went a long way to help them. It wouldn't take more than .00000000000001% of their earnings to do it. It would take planning an patience though -- I may have found the drawback, Google may not be capable of that.

They act almost like they enjoy getting even with people. If everyone was a software engineer, it would be different, but they're not. Many mom and pop businesses are trying the best they can and rely on so called professionals for advice. Those mom and pop businesses attract a lot of business to the internet for Google. Google should appreciate that and help to develop it.

I also have to file my taxes this weekend, which I really hate to do. Can we please have a flat tax or fair tax and get rid of the IRS and all those lobbyists on K Street in Washington DC?

As a result, I don't know who I hate more -- Google or the IRS. Today I think it's Google -- the IRS is more ethical.

#7 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,911 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:00 AM

Without the website owners, the searchers have no reason to come and Google has no business. Alienate enough website owners for long enough and they will take the first viable option that comes along


So one can presume you'll be blocking your site from being indexed by google?

Google's rules are simple and always have been. As long as you aren't trying to trick them in some way that tries to give your site some sort of advantage that it doesn't deserve, you'll never have to worry about a penalty.

#8 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 6,771 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:18 PM

the only parallel between tax collectors and Google that I can draw is the people trying to "beat the system" all get caught eventually.


And as for your lengthy diatribe ...

The most appropriate phrase from my vocabulary would be. ... You're talking a load of bollocks! (I'm not as polite or tactful as Jill is.)

And since when have taxpayers been the "clients" of the tax office? Despite that is how we are refered to.
  • Jill likes this

#9 piskie

piskie

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Location:Cornwall

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:45 PM

Why use 50 words to make a point when you can spew out 1,063 words using 6,043 characters??
  • Jill and Sarah like this

#10 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:40 PM

@chrishirst

You don't know how many websites get penalized that weren't trying to "trick Google" and neither do I. Anecdotal evidence and my experience working with clients suggest there are many.

You make a big jump to the conclusion that all websites that are penalized by Google are somehow dishonest. Why wouldn't you side with the many hardworking entrepreneurs out there rather than Google unless, of course, it serves your financial interests to be on Google's side.

You made the statement -- And since when have taxpayers been the "clients" of the tax office?

That's view is exactly the problem. The IRS doesn't look at taxpayers as clients, even though we pay their salary. Don't you see anything wrong with that? They will take advantage of small businesses that can't afford representation and bilk them out of thousands of dollars to improve their internal statistics. And, if you're a CPA, they will accuse you of being the mouthpiece for the mob because it serves their purposes.

Same with Google. They are taking advantage of websites that produce AdWords purchases and visitors that will click on those ads. Those website owners make the system viable and pay Google's salary. Don't you think Google should nurture the source of their website traffic rather than alienate it?

Maybe my marketing strategies are backwards, I thought a business was supposed to build good relationships with customers and the vendors that help them deliver those services. Word of mouth from the vendors and centers of influence can really help a business or alternatively, kill it (unless it's a monopoly, a topic for another day). Seems as though I might cause myself some problems if I alienate the vendors that help me deliver my products or services.

I'm just sayin' -- Google is hurting their Brand and they don't seem to care because they don't think there's anything we can do about it.

And, everyone singing the praises of Google is aiding and abetting.

Google is the picture of the "Evil Corporation" that is the subject of the Occupy Wall Street gatherings. There's no openness, honesty and willingness to work with people there. Matt Cutts said to Dan Thies that he wants Dan's followers to know Google is watching. What??? Sounds like a totalitarian regime.

What if Scott Monty said that about Ford customers? How well do you think that would work.

Your comments just support what everybody knows -- Google doesn't care what we think because they don't think there is anything we can do about it. They are going to do whatever they see as their best option to pad their treasury. Money first, customers when they get around to it.

.

Your statement -- Google's rules are simple and always have been. As long as you aren't trying to trick them in some way that tries to give your site some sort of advantage that it doesn't deserve, you'll never have to worry about a penalty.

There's no way you can prove that. Can you guarantee a website that Google won't erroneously penalize it?

Neither is there any way you can justify the statement that Google's rules are simple. Their rules are more vague than the Internal Revenue Code. And, their rules are much more subjective. I believe they purposely make their rules vague so they can change their policies whenever they want if it will help their profits. Their last concern, if it even is concern, is making it clear and simple for the user.

Many of their rules are defined by word of mouth (for which they can't be held accountable) and sites like this that guess as to what Google means.

My sources suggest there is a lot of collateral damage. After all, many of these penalties come from a mathematical formula implemented through a bot. Do you really trust a computer -- or in the case of a manual audit, poorly trained staff that are required to make subjective judgements about the economic future of honest, hard working entrepreneurs that provide products, services and jobs for society?

Look, Google has a leadership problem. They are that leader that rants and raves and forces everybody to do it their way. They need to lead the users of their system. Let them know when rule changes are coming and take several (probably 6 months) explaining exactly what they are looking for when they say "over optimization." Where is that definition in the Quality Guidelines.

If your leadership style is drivership, you will always have many people working against you. To get the best results in an organization or with a entrepreneurial venture you must lead and evangelize to everybody that comes in contact with your organization.

Case in Point - Apple Computer: Read - Selling The Dream by Guy Kawasaki. Apple has brilliantly managed their Brand and Guy was a huge part of that.

Get that book Google!

Instead Apple's evangelism is more along the lines of Eric Schmidt saying that (I paraphrase), "If users need to worry about Google spying on them, maybe they should stop what they are doing." How ignorant can he be? There are many situations in business that require confidentiality. Maybe Eric should share their algorithm with us -- or maybe Google should stop what it is doing.

Edited by Jill, 15 April 2012 - 09:53 PM.
Merged 2 posts in a row


#11 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,911 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:01 PM

Seriously your hate for google is getting old, chuck. It's interesting because my dislike for google is the exact opposite of yours. That is, they let way too much trickery get through and help sites to rank (ala my dear google article).

There's no way you can prove that. Can you guarantee a website that Google won't erroneously penalize it?


I have been doing SEO for over 17 years. I have seen and reviewed hundreds of sites that have lost google traffic. For 99% of those that weren't using deceptive (spam) practices, there were always technical issues at play that could be fixed or changed, which would result in fixing the google situation in general.



#12 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:24 AM

It's interesting because my dislike for google is the exact opposite of yours. That is, they let way too much trickery get through and help sites to rank (ala my dear google article).


My view of Google stems from that fact that I value ethics, honesty and tireless customer service.

I have been consulting with businesses large and small for 30 years on a much broader range of services than you. I believe I see it differently than you as a result. I'm willing to respectfully disagree on this one.

I'm fine with Google stopping many of the practices going on today as you suggest. As a matter of fact, I prefer it. My focus is marketing. I want to see SEO brought into the mainstream so I'm not embarrased to be associated with it. It's embarassing to see the SEO review sites out there today that blatantly lie about their review criteria -- and prominent SEO's are willing to pay to be on those sites. My preference is to out everybody and make SEO as honest a profession as accounting, banking or law. Right now those kinds of firms wouldn't dream of referring business to an SEO and I don't blame them.

I just expect Google to be clear with all parties as to what they expect and then do what they say. I believe they have a responsibility to publicize their rules -- maybe with regional events available to the public. I also want them to provide enough customer service to make sure they're not vicitimizing honest, hard working entrepreneurs who have spent thousands of dollars on their websites and depend on that income for their livelihood, as do their employees. One mistake on Google's part is too many as far as I'm concerned and I have reason to believe the collateral damage goes well beyond that.

All of us in business have a social responsibility.

Your statement above is as discriminatory as saying a particular race acts unfavorably because everyone of that race that you have observed acted that way. You haven't taken a statistically significant sample, applied consistent tests, and I suspect that your clients couldn't pay for the level of work that it would require to reach that conclusion.

Based on your statement above, though, we do agree on one thing. You can't count on Google to do what they say they will do.

Why would you trust them then?

I understand that your branding proposition depends on you promoting the Google playbook. Shouldn't there should always be limits, though.

#13 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 03:59 AM

Hi Jill,

I read your open letter to Google here ---> http://www.highranki...dear-google-290

Bravo, I agree with almost everything you said. I would add 3 things --

1) When Google fails to enforce standards, they encourage people to ignore those standards. Things change so much with Google because their policies give them a lot of wiggle room to change definitions and everyone is always guessing as to what their standards are and whether they will enforce them or we just don't understand, etc., etc., etc.

2) People that work hard on marketing their business should benefit. We should be promoting equal opportunity to promote your business. We don't want Google, or anybody else, making subjective judgements as to who goes first. If Google makes it clear as to what methods of linking are O.K. then people that get busy and make it happen should be rewarded just as they are in the brick and mortar marketplace.

3) As Google tries to correct this mess, they can't burn honest sites and not even be willing to communicate. Their algorithm doesn't work that well. You can't trust the algo to be prosecutor, judge and jury and the accused gets no representation. I would recommend a policy of talk first and resolve the disagreements rather than shoot first and refuse to talk.

Google has a social responsibility. The livelihood of honest, hard working entrepreneurs and their employees are on the line. They frequently have thousands of dollars invested in creating sites that will enhance user experience and provide the content Google needs to make money on their advertising products. It is very likely that the website owner didn't comply because Google did such a poor job of communicating their policies.

This isn't a game played by mean spirited little kids on the playground. It is irresponsible to affect businesses in this way and refuse to communicate.

It's interesting -- the American Bar Association cites the number one reason for law suits as lack of communication. The #1 reason for disputes -- Google would be wise to take heed.

It's not that I hate Google, it's that I love honesty, fairness and a willingness to put ethics and social responsibility above personal gain. I walk the walk.

And if you think that's not true, call my wife. E-mail me and I'll send her number.

#14 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,911 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:47 AM

My view of Google stems from that fact that I value ethics, honesty and tireless customer service.


Once again, I must remind you that you, as a website owner looking for organic free traffic to your site from Google, are NOT their customer. Period.

You didn't answer my question about whether you were going to remove your site from Google. Since that's the only way to let them know you're displeased and go elsewhere.

#15 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:10 AM

Hi Jill,

You've rather missed the point. The signal that Google will understand and respond to is the market not spending any money with them and not referring any business to them. That is the cost, to them, of unhappy users. It's a free country and I don't advocate government regulation. The Free Market will decide and it will pick winners and losers based on the willingness of the market to open their purse and encourage others to do the same.

That's how capitalism works: Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations, Milton Friedman - Free To Choose, etc.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!