87 replies to this topic

[ChuckFinley]

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.

That's part of the problem. Everyone has an opinion as to how things "should be" which may not be relevant to how things actually need to work to provide the service. Some of them are very opinionated and have created a platform that they can use to to get even with their competitors and push them out of the way. They do it by publicly embarrassing Google until Google has to decide to change their position or create a brand new rule no one ever knew about or that there are many different interpretations about. Of course, these people are looking to change rules to hurt their competitors and not to be fair.

That's the danger, that the system can be used against others. Not unlike wealthy businesses going to Washington DC and lobbying government to get their way, almost always to the detriment of their competitors and small businesses.

The only way to stop it is to have rules that are fair, probably are vetted with internet businesses, and businesses and others that disagree with Google's shot gun tactics agree are fair.

That is all that the "Google guidelines" they are NOT hard and fast "rules".......

You see, the "Devil Is In The Details", always. Someone must take charge to prevent that.

We are a long way from the Open Internet that Sergey and Larry dreamed of which would allow access and fairness for everybody. What happened, Sergey?

Good analysis, though @chrishirst you bring up relevant points. Thank you for your thoughtful insight. I'm just providing another view.

Edited by ChuckFinley, 24 April 2012 - 04:50 PM.

[Jill]

The only way to stop it is to have rules that are fair, probably are vetted with internet businesses, and businesses and others that disagree with Google's shot gun tactics agree are fair.

And we should all become communists to go along with that.

No thanks.

[chrishirst]

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?

Google DO NOT have ANYONE'S "best interests at heart" other than protecting their own investment and their corporate income.

Do you think "Gmail" happened for philanthropic reasons? No of course it didn't! It is a marketing opportunity, and of course if you have your customers likes, dislikes, hates, hobbies, rants, raves, in their Google+ profile AND what they buy (Google Checkout/Wallet) you can make some serious targeting to the adverts you show them.

Chuck are you SO naive to think that Google offer all these products and services out of the goodness of their heart?? Google is a money making enterprise that has a HUGE "client" database that they know a lot about.

I bet you also think supermarket chains have "reward" or "loyalty" cards just because they like you and want to do their level best for you as an important, honoured or privileged customer. Do they bollocks! They give them out because by knowing who you are and what you buy means they can target offers, coupons etc. for things that you WILL buy

Chuck, please, c'mon! Do you understand marketing at all?? It is THE first rule of marketing and the primary driving force of customer relations.

KNOW YOUR CUSTOMERS

Google are INCREDIBLY GOOD at it! So good in fact we all clamour to give them as much information as they want.

Their aim isn't to "control" the Internet, because that would actually be bad for business, what they want is to do, is be able to market other people's products (that they get paid for) to the largest possible audience, and an audience that they can PRECISELY target their advertising to.

It is the finest example of "Sniper Marketing" that you could ever possibly imagine. One that the "outsourced" numptie marketers and the "Machine Gun Marketers" should learn from.

As we have said several times WE (optimisers, "organic" marketers and site owners) are not whom Google wish to please. It is their customer base they need to please, the paying advertisers, the searching public, without whom of course there would be no paying advertisers.

If some marketers and owners are disgruntled because THEIR pages are not on page one, who cares? So long as the public are satisfied and keep on buying products, it really does not matter to Google one little bit who's page they buy those products from

Edited by chrishirst, 25 April 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Jill]

If some marketers and owners are disgruntled because THEIR pages are not on page one, who cares? So long as the public are satisfied and keep on buying products, it really does not matter to Google one little bit who's page they buy those products from

[ChuckFinley]

Google DO NOT have ANYONE'S "best interests at heart" other than protecting their own investment and their corporate income.

Agreed.

Do you think "Gmail" happened for philanthropic reasons?

I'm not talking about philanthropy or communal living here. I'm talking about smart PR and business practices that will maximize shareholder return.

Moreover, the animosity Google creates with it's practices has resulted in a new plague for online businesses -- negative seo. Google -- negative seo -- this is a new industry the has shot up because Google let it's policies on linking get waaaaaaaaaay out of control. These companies will link bomb your competitors' sites with bad intent.

Dan Thies is the most notable target. They bombed his sites and he got the "unnatural links" notice for both of them. Because of his high profile, he'll get his request for reconsideration approved. The average small business will lose their website and Google won't be willing to discuss it.

In the interest of fairness and clarity -- the jury is still out on whether the negative seo'ers can drop rankings. Dan disputes that he lost rankings due to being link bombed. He did say he thinks it's possible and has offered to work with the negative seo crowd to structure a test that proves or disproves it.

The reports suggest that it would be very hard to hurt a site with a very broad link profile with many links and many high PageRank links. I concur. But, that description never fits a small business just trying to make a living and that has no idea what a blog network or negative seo is.

Regardless or whether rankings will or will not drop (I think they will for small business sites), they will do a job on a your online reputation. People will find unflattering comments all over the internet tied to the small business they target. Worse yet -- they'll make it appear that you are the one making the comments. Neither Google nor your customers will be able to tell the difference.

So, what do you say, maybe Google should flex their muscles again and further incite the "negative seo businesses" so we have an all out civil war on the internet. ???

None of this would be happening without poor policy/rules choices by Google.

Bad Leadership + Bad Public Relations = Reduction in Earnings for everyone, including Google.

I advocate for honest, hard working small businesses that spend 1,000's of dollars to create websites that will engage customers, an effort Google encourages.

Small businesses don't deserve to be subjected to this kind of risk because of petty fights that Google continues to have with affiliate marketers and SEO's.

So my question to Google -- "Who's going to be the adult?"

Edited by ChuckFinley, 25 April 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[Jill]

I'm not talking about philanthropy or communal living here. I'm talking about smart PR and business practices that will maximize shareholder return.

Being nice to SEOs will not do that. In fact it would likely have the opposite effect.

Dan Thies is the most notable target. They bombed his sites and he got the "unnatural links" notice for both of them. Because of his high profile, he'll get his request for reconsideration approved.

He doesn't need to file one because the negative SEO didn't work (as he mentioned earlier).

Regardless or whether rankings will or will not drop (I think they will for small business sites), they will do a job on a your online reputation. People will find unflattering comments all over the internet tied to the small business they target. Worse yet -- they'll make it appear that you are the one making the comments. Neither Google nor your customers will be able to tell the difference.

Huh? What's that got to do with anything we've been talking about, or about google?

So my question to Google -- "Who's going to be the adult?"

Obviously not you since you want google to baby you. Google isn't your dad. It's a business. Yes someone certainly does need to grow up, and it isn't google.

[ChuckFinley]

He doesn't need to file one because the negative SEO didn't work (as he mentioned earlier).

He does need to file as he received the "unnatural link notices" that direct him to do so. I believe he was on the help forum and John Mu? told him to file.

Huh? What's that got to do with anything we've been talking about, or about google?

Google's actions created the "negative seo industry" that uses techniques that will damage your online reputation.

[1dmf]

Nothing happens without marketing which Google hates.

Yes it does, I've seen a steady increase from 10 visitors a week to now over 200 a week direct from Google organic rankings, and I do absolutely nothing to advertise my site! (bar the odd forum footer link!)

OK getting @ 1,500 visitors a month from all SE's might not set the world on fire, but as my advertising spend so far has been ZERO, nor do I participate in link building, I think that's good value for money!

what does Google want?

Who cares, it's about what your vistors / customers want. yes you need to make sure you don't do what G! doesn't want you to do, but most of that is common sense and standard good practice.

quality content, semantic , validated markup, easy to navigate and SE friendly site structure, good copy text and a user friendly experience.

Do you really need Google to tell you to do those things?

There are no shorcuts or magic 'software' bullets to getting good rankings, it takes a good site, run by ethical people, participating in good practices for their customers and doing all the normal advertising and marketing stuff in an honourable fashion.

Do you spam potential clients, leaflet drop indiscriminately, spam advertsiing agencies, harrass magazines or industry bodies to get your name out, would you put adverts for your latest 'alcho pop' on the AA meeting board? Or your latest gut busting deep fried mars bar treets on the weight watchers notice board?

So why do people think spamming directories, search engines and placing irrelivant links on websites that is not your demographic is SEO and good practice?

As much as I have distain for G! as a corporation, I certainly won't blame them for trying to clear the junk out of their SERPs or penalising companies found to be using suspect methods to try to game their algorithm.

Anyone who puts content on their site just for Google is doing it wrong! Put content on your site for your customers in a Google friendly way, Simples!

Edited by 1dmf, 26 April 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[Jill]

He does need to file as he received the "unnatural link notices" that direct him to do so. I believe he was on the help forum and John Mu? told him to file.

So what? Why does he have to do what John Mu told him to do? If his site is unaffected there's no reason to file a reconsideration request.

Google's actions created the "negative seo industry" that uses techniques that will damage your online reputation.

Sorry, but that's simply wrong. Online reputation problems have been around long before any of this and has nothing to do with what some are calling "negative SEO." That is linking people's sites into low quality places.

[1dmf]

'That is linking people's sites into

Jill -> can you define 'low quality places.'?

[Jill]

Jill -> can you define 'low quality places.'?

Blog networks and the like.

[chrishirst]

Jill -> can you define 'low quality places.'?

Link "wheels", crappy "reciprocal link" directories, pages that exist purely for link exchanges and the like, MFA "splogs" need we go on?

[ChuckFinley]

Why doesn't Google just turn links off and be done with it?

[Jill]

Because it makes for a much better algorithm.

[1dmf]

so does low quality = low PR?

Link "wheels", crappy "reciprocal link" directories, pages that exist purely for link exchanges and the like, MFA "splogs" need we go on?

How do some of these so called low quality sites have sometimes high PR?

I got an email from such a place this week...

Hello,

We are sending this e-mail to let our users know that we have launched a new PageRank 7 backlink campaign to help you increase your website's search engine ranking and receive more visitors and eventually more customers to your business. The Pagerank 7 directories currently available are:


http://www.xxxxx.com

http://www.xxxxx.org



100 links are available and links are for as low as 19USD for a year.



Instructions are included on the home page, simply visit the websites if you would like to take this opportunity.



These directories have a priority to our former users who receive this email and will not be offered to public until Apr 25th, 2012.

Note: the names have been changed to protect the guilty!

Clearly black hat dodgy SEOers with low quality directories , yet high PR which they are trying to sell.

Of course I have reported them to abuse@Google, but who knows if they will actually do anything about it!

Edited by 1dmf, 27 April 2012 - 10:49 AM.