31 replies to this topic

[ChuckFinley]

Dan did get the "unnatural link" notice for both of his sites as a result of the negative seo campaign pointed at them. So they succeeded at least to that extent.

The jury's out as to whether they can produce long-term reductions.

I think the real question this begs is, do bad links hurt a site? What you are saying here is they don't, so it should be O.K. to build spam links to a site.

Edited by ChuckFinley, 23 April 2012 - 02:53 AM.

[Jill]

The answer appears to be the same as its always been: not if you already have a well established "real" link profile.

[ChuckFinley]

Agreed.

[OldWelshGuy]

The worse part in all of this is that Google are still allowed to punish a site based on information they hold, but are not willing to give. I.E. they tell you that there are un-natural links, yet refuse to give you the complete set of links they have for you, then simply tell you that there are still un-natural links pointing to you.

Surely the easiest way is to remove link juice from links they consider to be un-natural. Under Uk (EU) law I believe this may breach the human rights act of sole traders, and I for one am pushing this agenda.

ALL google need to do is to have a set of checkboxes within WMT to allow you to discount links you are not comfortable with i.e please treat this link to me as if it were a nofollow.

Oh and as an aside, google are sending un-natural link warnings for sites with 100% no follow links (test site)

[torka]

ALL google need to do is to have a set of checkboxes within WMT to allow you to discount links you are not comfortable with i.e please treat this link to me as if it were a nofollow.

Ya know, I like this idea!

Would give the Googlers some more indication of sites that are dodgy, too -- get too many other sites checking off links from your site, maybe they should take a closer look at it.

--Torka

Edited by torka, 25 April 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Jill]

ALL google need to do is to have a set of checkboxes within WMT to allow you to discount links you are not comfortable with i.e please treat this link to me as if it were a nofollow.

Agree with you and Torka. That would be a great idea!

[ChuckFinley]

Oh and as an aside, google are sending un-natural link warnings for sites with 100% no follow links (test site)

Hi @OldWelschGuy

Your recommendations are excellent, that is exactly what should be done and it would be easy for Google to do. I wonder why they don't do that?

I have been very vocal about that idea that many small businesses are being harmed and Google won't even communicate with them. That's bad business and it's coming back to haunt Google now.

I agree that some of Google's actions may be in violation of various laws around the world. There is no way to know without access to their internal communications, though. It would take a law suit and court ordered discovery to get them.

One mistake Google may have made is the large scale on which they decided to roll out these penalties. If someone can find merit for a law suit, a US attorney may take up a Class Action Suit because of the large number of people involved. And, there may be a basis for arguing that consumers are hurt as a result of Google's actions too. If so, the number of potential plaintiffs will be very large.

You know how we Americans love to sue each other!

Edited by ChuckFinley, 25 April 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[Jill]

There are no laws about a business not listing another business if the don't feel like it. All previous law suits against google in that vein have been stuck down as they should.

[ChuckFinley]

There are no laws about a business not listing another business if the don't feel like it. All previous law suits against google in that vein have been stuck down as they should.

There are fact patterns that would be in restraint of fair trade. There's not enough evidence to know that, though.

[Michael Martinez]

No one will ever win a "restraint of trade" lawsuit against Google unless they can show that Google singled them out for special treatment beyond what the published guidelines say. Google is a private company and not a public utility.

I recently read online that someone was suggesting that Google be made a public utility. Now THAT would be interesting to see.

[ChuckFinley]

No one will ever win a "restraint of trade" lawsuit against Google unless they can show that Google singled them out for special treatment beyond what the published guidelines say. Google is a private company and not a public utility.

I recently read online that someone was suggesting that Google be made a public utility. Now THAT would be interesting to see.

That's exactly right -- a company would need internal communications and an ability to depose Google employees to be able to establish that. The probable cause to get a judge to allow it would be the tough part. It could come from a disgruntled employee, that's how it usually happens.

The utility thing is dopey.

Here's what investigators in Europe were looking for in regard to JC Penney -- http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Is it possible that Google was willing to countenance an extensive black-hat campaign because it helped one of its larger advertisers? It’s the sort of question that European Union officials are now studying in an investigation of possible antitrust abuses by Google.
Investigators have been asking advertisers in Europe questions like this: “Please explain whether and, if yes, to what extent your advertising spending with Google has ever had an influence on your ranking in Google’s natural search.” And: “Has Google ever mentioned to you that increasing your advertising spending could improve your ranking in Google’s natural search?”

[Michael Martinez]

Well, good luck to them. As I have already documented on SEO Theory, the Google penalty had no apparent effect on JC Penney's Internet earnings, which increased in the quarter when the penalty was in place over the previous year. That is data JCP themselves provided in their earnings reports. If they are really complaining to the EU or any other government body about being unfairly restricted by Google they're going to have to explain how the numbers don't add up without incurring an SEC investigation.

[ChuckFinley]

Well, good luck to them.

It's not clear from the article who initiated the investigation or why. The point is, there are limits.

[OldWelshGuy]

Hi @OldWelschGuy

Your recommendations are excellent,  that is exactly what should be done and it would be easy for Google to do.  I wonder why they don't do that?

they won't do it because it would make reverse engineering of their linking algorithm too easy

[ChuckFinley]

they won't do it because it would make reverse engineering of their linking algorithm too easy

Isn't reverse engineering their algorithm easy enough though? There are thousands of people out there that work night and day, through trial and error, to figure out what is does. And, they do a good job of it too?

I think you're correct, that probably is Google's thinking. I think they need to try another approach -- the Google Police State isn't working.