87 replies to this topic

[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.

But the users (searchers) are not unhappy. Only the (some) website owners. So your point is moot.

And in fact, the website owners now have to spend more money with them on paid ads since many can't get traffic off of them for free. It's quite ingenious, actually. (My google sucks all the way to the bank article explains further.)

[1dmf]

One thing G! & IRS have in common is neither PAY taxes.

There is an investigation regarding G! in the UK (Ireland) and their tax evasion, disgracefull.

The same as Amazon UK managed to reduce their tax bill from 35million to absolutely nothing , zero , ziltch , nada!

These corporate giants are evil , tax avoiding scum, that need either taking to court and forced to pay up just like we all have to - or shut down and put out of business!

It's digusting what they get away with just because they have so much money!

[ChuckFinley]

One thing G! & IRS have in common is neither PAY taxes.

There is an investigation regarding G! in the UK (Ireland) and their tax evasion, disgracefull.

It's digusting what they get away with just because they have so much money!

Here's a good one --

Google's $500 Million Pharma Ad Fine -- There appears to be evidence that Google was actually encouraging the use of its system -->

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/25/googles-500-million-pharma-ad-fine/

But the users (searchers) are not unhappy. Only the (some) website owners. So your point is moot.

And in fact, the website owners now have to spend more money with them on paid ads since many can't get traffic off of them for free. It's quite ingenious, actually. (My google sucks all the way to the bank article explains further.)

You're right, that is what they are doing. The are trying to push the little guy out of the SERP's so they can sell their AdWords Express product.

As Aaron Wall at SEO Book points out, if the point of Panda was content farms, it would have been over a long time ago -- there's only a handful of them and Google knows who they are. Panda is an opportunity to "Squeeze The Little Guy" and affiliates.

They are pushing Brands for the same reason. The things they slap the big Brands' wrists for would put a small business permanently out of the SERP's with no explanation or recourse.

Here is part of Google's Big Brands plan from Aaron --> http://www.seobook.c...ding-brands.php

Pushing Big Brands gives them another way to push the little guy out.

And, you're right -- they think that will help them sell their AdWords Express product.

And, it may work.....unless they become vulnerable in some way. Remember Blockbuster Video, that is bankrupt Blockbuster Video.

I just think it's too bad Google can throw it's weight around like that -- it's getting very close to the monopoly (and not the fun family game) threshhold and anti-trust issues.

The only place I differ slightly with you is -- "website owners now have to spend more money with them on paid ads since many can't get traffic"

Soon someone will exploit this opportunity to penetrate Google's market share. No one like's mean spirited businesses that throw their weight around. No one. There are other viable advertising options, it's just a matter of adding the packaging now. Google has opened the door.

You would think Google had a "Negative PR Department" that was taken over by evil renegade Google executives who are trying to destroy Google's Brand Image. Who would do it like this? Absolutely bizarre!!!

I just changed my default browser to www.duckduckgo.com today. Next week I'm replacing the Android with an iPhone, the week after.....

Get the point?

But the users (searchers) are not unhappy. Only the (some) website owners. So your point is moot.

Yes, you make a very good point here. This is so true.

Unless the searchers start to look at it like this --

Off To Bankruptcy Court for Victims of Google's Mass Penalties Against Online Businesses

Google's mass penalties against hardworking, honest online businesses is sending the online businesses to bankruptcy court and their employees to the unemployment lines. And all of this during the worst financial catastrophe since the Great Depression.

The costs of these business failures and displaced workers are passed on to the American population at large -- you and me, that is! At a time of increasing deficits and $15 trillion dollars of US debt, Google has found a way to profit, at our expense, by further increasing the US local and national debt as a result of these bankruptcies.

Remember, Google's penalty system is inaccurate. It applies a one formula fits all approach to penalizing businesses through the use of mathematical formulas implemented by online robots that stalk their prey and brutalize suspect websites. There is no case by case review -- Google is Judge, Prosecutor, Jury and there are No Appeals. Google's bot's will apply penalties to 1,000's if not hundreds of 1,000's of innocent victims and Google will refuse to tell the victims why they did it. Most of the time, Google won't even communicate with their victims.

Great judgement and Social Responsibility Google. Your timing is impeccable. What genius dreamed up this PR campaign?

I wonder which of Google's competitors could benefit from a PR Campaign like that? .......

Edited by Jill, 21 April 2012 - 01:49 PM.
Merged 3 posts in a row

[chrishirst]

I never fail to miss the point to Aaron Wall's own peculiar kind of logic.


In what world do "big brands" NOT have an "advantage" over a "small" business, they have the advantage simply because they are "branded" and therefore are searched for more thus come up more often in "suggestion"

The BMW debacle simply adds weight to my hypothesis that there is a "nice" scale and a "naughty" scale.

I put Rand Fishkin and Aaron Wall on the same level, that is "publishers of pseudo scientific nonsense", ironically as it may seem, just to maintain their branding as SEO "experts". Ah! you may say "in that case why do the search engine representatives often refer to them as a source for those wishing to further their knowledge"

Well, if you were in the same position as the SE reps wouldn't you point out places that confuse and confound the real truth about their secret algorithm?

Edited by chrishirst, 21 April 2012 - 06:15 AM.

[ChuckFinley]

I put Rand Fishkin and Aaron Wall on the same level, that is "publishers of pseudo scientific nonsense", ironically as it may seem, just to maintain their branding as SEO "experts".

I don't see Aaron publishing that kind of nonsense. I do think he offers insight into the business side of internet marketing that is very helpful. There's no mystery about big brands, though -- Vince 2009, Eric Schmidt saying the way to drain the cesspool is to elevate Brands, etc.

I definitely agree with you on Rand. They are always publishing so call "scientific studies" where they analyze 2 variables and there are probably 20 variables that can affect the problem. Nothing but pure psycho-analytical babble and Aaron says the same thing. It's like multiplying a number with 2 places to the right of the decimal by a number with 20 numbers to the right of the decimal and saying it can be accurate to 20 places -- it's only accurate to 2 places.

The best way to analyze SEO is to look at what works on your own site and that's exactly what Aaron says.

He's a good guy and adds some valuable insight to the community. Don't knock him.

Bang on Rand all you want, he deserves it. His ethics suck.

Edited by ChuckFinley, 23 April 2012 - 03:07 AM.

[ChuckFinley]

@chrishirst

BTW, you are right about the nice and naughty scale. Buying links Google is clear about -- blog networks are included here -- and you shouldn't do that. Google's clear that you shouldn't link to bad neighborhoods - porn, drugs, gambling every one gets that and why would you do that anyway? -- both are in the Quality Guidelines.

Less clear -- can I link to directories? If not, which ones. If I pay to be on Yahoo! Directory, Business.com, Best of the Web, etc. is that a paid link?

What is a link scheme designed to affect page rank? If I link to lots of low-end directories with anchor text, is that a link scheme or a form of advertising? (Preventing advertising with other sources by penalizing businesses is "in restraint of fair trade" and is illegal based on Federal law.) Links with anchor text from low PR directories can't affect page rank so it must be O.K. (see Maile Ohye's comment below and the Quality Guidelines). So what's this stuff about over optimizing anchor text if it's used to link from a low-end directory and it can't affect PageRank? The Quality Guidelines say it has to affect PageRank to be a link scheme outside the rules of the Quality Guidlines.

Since when is putting yourself on a directory a link scheme anyway, that's ignorant.

Here's what Maile Ohye says --



Is her word any good? What if they decide they don't want to allow that tomorrow and call it a link scheme? They can change it anytime they feel like it because their definition is so vague it can mean anything they want it to.

Matt Cutts "Over Optimization Penalty" -- what is this about? Where is that in the Quality Guidelines?

What is keyword stuffing? How many times can I put the same keyword on a page before its keyword stuffing? Does that include related keywords too? -- keyword stemming, semantically related, synonyms, misspellings, and other variations?

If I use Localeze to blast data to many directories, search engines and other data providers for Local Search, is that a link scheme? Localeze will scrape my data and blast it out even if I don't sign up for the expanded service. All the Local experts recommend using them.

And on, and on, and on.

Or do I do what Matt Cutts says -- just write really awesome content and everyone will show up and look at it and tell their friends and you'll be able to live in the beautiful Google world where everything is wonderful and ..... what a load of bullocks that is. Nothing happens without marketing which Google hates.

Listen, the point is -- if Google made their rules clear, all the black hatters would still violate them, but they just wouldn't bitch about it when they get burned and decide to create a new negative seo industry to teach Google a lesson because they would know it was their own damn fault. They understand fair and fair is you tell people what you expect and then do what you said. Of course you have to establish rules that are well thought out, fair and can be implemented by webmasters. Google's got a ways to go on that.

Now for the part I care about -- honest, hard working businesses owners would be able to understand the rules and they wouldn't get 20 different interpretations if they talked to 20 people and 30 different interpretation if they talked to 30 people. They wouldn't need to go to those people.

Businesses want to protect their brands, work hard on their sites to engage customers and sell their products. But, they come to market their products not publish for Matt Cutts.

Something is going to have to give here or the internet is going to be in a shambles within 5 years and will end up like MySpace or Craig's List.

Why can't Google lay out firm rules? Why can't they tell people what their Over Optimization Penalty will be? Why do people have to guess? Why do people have to try different approaches to know what the algorithm does? If Google won't tell you what their rules are, how can you not assume they agree with anything the algorithm let's you do?

Google reminds me of a young kid put in a leadership position for the first time and they just aren't very good at it -- can't communicate, can't organize, can't lead and everything is always in chaos and the troops are always pissed off.

Edited by ChuckFinley, 23 April 2012 - 04:15 AM.

[Jill]

Chuck, we all understand the point you're trying to make. Is it really necessary to repeat it ad nauseum? That's not going to change the minds of those of us who disagree.

[ChuckFinley]

That's not going to change the minds of those of us who disagree.

I don't know what you mean by "disagree". Could you please address the questions above? It would be very helpful. Thousands of small businesses look to you for specific guidance.

[Jill]

I've already addressed them previously--either in this thread or one of the hundreds of others you've been talking about the same thing.

To summarize:

We (website owners) are not Google's clients.

Therefore everything you're saying has no bearing.

[chrishirst]

Google's clear that you shouldn't link to bad neighborhoods - porn, drugs, gambling every one gets that and why would you do that anyway?

|Gambling, porn and pharmacy pages are ABSOLUTELY NOTthe fabled "bad neigbourhoods" certainly if you run a site that has no connection to those industries or marketplaces then you probably shouldn't necessarily be linking to them, but if you have an site associated or allied with them who is to say that you cannot? "Bad neighbourhoods" are site or pages that are using dubious techniques or methods to subvert search engines.

Less clear -- can I link to directories? If not, which ones. If I pay to be on Yahoo! Directory, Business.com, Best of the Web, etc. is that a paid link?

Nobody can tell you NOT to link to ANYWHERE that you want to, by the way you don't pay for a listing in Yahoo!'s directory, you pay for a REVIEW to see if you CAN be listed.
ALSO nobody can tell you that you can't buy advertising wherever you wish.


So the upshot is, your personal anymosity toward Google appears to be caused by you not actually understanding the whole thing too well!!

Edited by chrishirst, 23 April 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[ChuckFinley]

So the upshot is, your personal anymosity toward Google appears to be caused by you not actually understanding the whole thing too well!!

Yes, that is true. I've been asking you guys to explain it to me in specifics. Up till now all you have said is that if you do what Google wants you'll be fine.

What does Google want?

The Quality Guidelines don't say what you said. That's the problem that small businesses experience too. If Google would be specific, they would do what they ask. It's a shame that they choose to use penalties as a means of communication or rather in lieu of communication.

Thank you sir, no bullocks to you on this one! @chrishirst, you're alright.

This thread is closed as far as I'm concerned. That will make Jill happy too, LOL!

Edited by ChuckFinley, 23 April 2012 - 10:46 PM.

[chrishirst]

Just because I'm trying to get the last word in ....

The problem is ... There are no specifics. This is a world of abstracts, of subjective views and opinions.

Like the world of art, you don't truly know what good art is until you see it and everybody's opinion is different. Like pornography, you couldn't describe what it is, but you will know it when you see it.

What does Google want? That hasn't changed since September 1998. They want only one thing and that is to show the best documents to their users for their query. It is literally that simple.
To that end they use user generated 'signals' a to determine what people are suggesting is a useful document by linking to it, or documents / URIs that are being discussed in/on various places around the network we call the World Wide Web.

What do they NOT want?
Easy:

They don't want:
... documents that are created to a "formula".
... URLs that have a faked "link profile".
... Paid adverts that create a false link profile
... and cloaking.

That is all that the "Google guidelines" they are NOT hard and fast "rules", they simply tell you to;

"Create your site for [our] | [your] users not for a search engine.

They are nothing more sinister than that.

Edited by chrishirst, 24 April 2012 - 03:34 AM.

[piskie]

If Google were to publish and rigidly apply to a set of formulaic rules, it would be a charter for Spammers.
Just imagine what they could do (and get away with) if they knew the exact criteria and degrees of all the measuring tools that would be applied to their sites.

Pushing to the absolute boundaries would become the norm.
Now I find that thought really frightening !!

[torka]

Exactly, piskie! That's the main reason why there are not -- and never will be -- a whole lot of specific rules from Google.

Every time you create another rule, there's a contingent out there who will go to work trying to find loopholes. They will ALWAYS be able to find at least one. So, you have to create another rule to cover the exception condition they discovered... whereupon they'll start looking for another loophole within the loophole. And so on and so forth. It turns into a neverending game of one-upsmanship, without bringing any real value to the situation.

I think Chris hit it on the head when he compared the whole thing to art. Great artists don't require specific rules in order to make amazing art. They don't push external limits set by bureaucrats or engineers -- they push their own internal limits, to see how much more creative, how much better they can be. Google wants to reward with high rankings the web page equivalents of fine art paintings and sculpture. They're not looking for paint-by-numbers hacks.

Nobody deserves a top 10 ranking simply for following a set of rules, any more than a paint-by-number copy of an Old Master deserves to be hung in The Louvre.

The way some people talk, there was apparently no way to get a new business off the ground before Google came along. And now that it's here, there's no way for a business to succeed without excellent Google rankings. Google holds all the cards, with power of life and death over every business. Oh, the humanity.

Which is, of course, utter malarky.

Google is not, never has been and never will be the only game in town for marketing anyone's goods or services. Offer the best products or services that you can. Create the best content (articles, white papers, advertisements, flyers, brochures, etc.) you can to tell people about what you offer. Make that content as easy to access as you can (post it online, sure... but also put it on a billboard, broadcast it on TV/radio, put flyers in windshields, hand out brochures, etc.). Use the content to guide people toward a purchase. If you've got a good offer and you let people know about it, your business will do well even if Google were to disappear tomorrow.

If one's business requires good rankings in Google to survive, I respectfully submit one doesn't have a particularly viable business to start with.

--Torka

[ChuckFinley]

@Torka

Procrastinate now! Don't put it off! ~~ Ellen DeGeneres

Great emoticons, LOL! And, great quote!!!

You are a very savvy lady. Everything you say about marketing is right on and I recommend your advice to any small business owner.

The future of SEO will be Marketing Centric SEO. But, yes, you must create multiple offline channels to reap the full potential of your business as well as protect yourself from risk. Anything else is tantamount to putting everything down on Red on the Roulette Wheel.

I even go beyond that and help my clients create international strategies that will mitigate risk created by governments.

A reflection on one thing -- to give Google that much power, one would have to trust them. Do we? Should we?

Should we believe they have your best interest at heart, and always will? Even if Google has the best of intentions, can we be unintentionally harmed, i.e., collateral damage? Can we trust Google to correct unintended consequences? Do they have systems and procedures in place to do that? Do their statements and actions support that?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton (1834-1902), British historian

What happens when Google controls 30% of the market worldwide, should we still trust them to be a benevolent dictator then?

Edited by ChuckFinley, 24 April 2012 - 04:48 PM.