Yet Another Reason to Hate Google

[RJM62]

I received an email from a Web site owner overseas. For reasons that will become apparent momentarily, I can't post a link to the site.

The Web site owner requested that I remove some links that users posted on a forum. I don't own the forum nor the site it's part of, nor do I participate on it as a member. I basically just maintain it and evict the occasional spammer.

The complaint of the person who contacted me was that he found out that Google was penalizing his site for "link spamming" because several forum users had posted links to his site because it provided answers to questions that other forum users had asked. They weren't "compensated links" or any other sort of spam. They were placed by users solely because the landing site answered questions that other users had asked.

I understand Google's desire to attack link spamming because it messes with their algos. But the links in question are not spam. They were posted by the users because the landing content was good: And even 10 seconds of human review would have made that obvious. But because Google is loath to use humans rather than robots to do these sorts of things -- even when other companies' or sites revenues' could be damaged by Google's actions -- Google simply decided that the links were spam.

The end result is that Google is punishing site owners for creating good, relevant content, simply because their robots are too stupid to distinguish between spam and links placed by real people to point to helpful content; and Google as a company is too arrogant to review the links before penalizing the landing site owners.

This is one reason why I've become reluctant to post links here and in other forums. By trying to point other members to good, relevant content on other sites, I could be hurting those sites and their owners or webmasters.

I hate Google more and more every day. If my prayers are someday answered and Google goes out of business, it will make the Internet Web a much better place.

-Rich

 

[ClimbnSink]

Internet broken yet? I guess it will never break, but perhaps someday no one will log on. If no one is on the internet is the internet still there? CB radio anyone?

 

[RJM62]

Internet broken yet? I guess it will never break, but perhaps someday no one will log on. If no one is on the internet is the internet still there? CB radio anyone?

Point taken. I've changed it to "Web" (although what Google did to Usenet is also inexcusable).

-Rich

 

[ClimbnSink]

Point taken. I've changed it to "Web" (although what Google did to Usenet is also inexcusable).

-Rich

Rich I wasn't picking on your choice of words just making fun of the interwebz and how these things go. With privacy issues, search engine*cough* o$timization and wordpress censoring, I really wonder how long till we are back to home printed zines. Are the ham radio guys laughing at us yet?

 

[RJM62]

Rich I wasn't picking on your choice of words just making fun of the interwebz and how these things go. With privacy issues, search engine*cough* o$timization and wordpress censoring, I really wonder how long till we are back to home printed zines. Are the ham radio guys laughing at us yet?

I understand. But you were right, anyway. I was pizzed off when I posted and I used the wrong term.

Look, I don't care if Google makes tons of money. Good for them! I don't even care if they dominate the Web, as long as in the course of doing so they make it better.

But when Google starts punishing publishers for creating good, relevant content that is so compelling that other people want to post links to it, then Google is hurting the Web in the worst possible way. They're undermining the very thing that made the Web so useful and so much a part of our daily lives: Good content.

And that, IMHO, is inexcusable.

-Rich

 

[JeffDG]

OK, so you dislike Google for using their algorithms to filter search results.

Let's remove Google from the equation. Now there's no search results whatsoever.

How does that benefit the content creators?

 

[RJM62]

OK, so you dislike Google for using their algorithms to filter search results.

Let's remove Google from the equation. Now there's no search results whatsoever.

How does that benefit the content creators?

There are other search engines that don't hurt content providers in order to accommodate their own business model and their manifest incompetence in building effective filtering algos.

-Rich

 

[JeffDG]

There are other search engines that don't hurt content providers in order to accommodate their own business model and their manifest incompetence in building effective filtering algos.

-Rich

OK, then, ignore the Google algorithms then, and provide whatever links you wish.

 

[SCCutler]

OK, then, ignore the Google algorithms then, and provide whatever links you wish.

I believe you are missing (or ignoring the point). Google markers itself (quite successfully) as the premier search engine, but their ranking algorithms unreasonably punish legitimate sites and resources.

We cannot simply "ignore" Google's algorithms, because they cause harm to users by providing false results.

 

[JeffDG]

I believe you are missing (or ignoring the point). Google markers itself (quite successfully) as the premier search engine, but their ranking algorithms unreasonably punish legitimate sites and resources.

We cannot simply "ignore" Google's algorithms, because they cause harm to users by providing false results.

The issue is, you can't suck and blow at the same time.

If you want to eliminate Google and their algorithms, then you can't at the same time claim that they are essential to the fabric of the Web. These two things are mutually inconsistent.

It would be like saying "I think Blue is evil" and "Blue is the foundation of all that is good in the world".

The idea that "with 10 seconds of human interaction" is entirely unrealistic. We're talking millions of man-hours every day to provide that 10 second of human interaction that "fixes" this.

 

[Everskyward]

Google isn't the only search engine but I doubt if any of them with high volume would have human intervention in the way Rich would like.

 

[gkainz]

so you're saying that posting my flying club link in my sig below here may be hurting its visibility to search engines?

 

[Bob Noel]

I think the point is that the algorithms are flawed.

Is it unreasonable to want algorithms fixed?

 

[RJM62]

I believe you are missing (or ignoring the point). Google markers itself (quite successfully) as the premier search engine, but their ranking algorithms unreasonably punish legitimate sites and resources.

We cannot simply "ignore" Google's algorithms, because they cause harm to users by providing false results.

Exactly.

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

The issue is, you can't suck and blow at the same time.

If you want to eliminate Google and their algorithms, then you can't at the same time claim that they are essential to the fabric of the Web. These two things are mutually inconsistent.

It would be like saying "I think Blue is evil" and "Blue is the foundation of all that is good in the world".

The idea that "with 10 seconds of human interaction" is entirely unrealistic. We're talking millions of man-hours every day to provide that 10 second of human interaction that "fixes" this.

It would not be unreasonable to take that 10 seconds prior to deliberately categorizing a site's incoming links as "spam." That's a punitive measure, and a quick human review isn't an unreasonable thing to do prior to taking that measure. They could farm that job out to "Bobby" in Bangalore. At least he'd be able to use his real name.

Google has abrogated to itself the right to be the sole arbiter of whether a site is engaging in "link spam." That being the case, they owe some measure of due process to site owners that they wish to penalize in this way. The job of a search engine is to categorize and make available relevant content, not to influence that content.

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

so you're saying that posting my flying club link in my sig below here may be hurting its visibility to search engines?

Based on the results I got, I'd have to say no, in your case. Maybe Google's robots are smart enough to know that sig links on an aviation forum that point to aviation sites are probably legit. Or maybe not. But it doesn't seem to be hurting you, in any case.

-Rich

 

[SCCutler]

If you want to eliminate Google and their algorithms, then you can't at the same time claim that they are essential to the fabric of the Web. These two things are mutually inconsistent.

Clearly, on this point, we disagree.

First of all, Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. I do not claim (and do not believe Rich has claimed) that Google and its algorithms are "essential to the fabric of the web."

Google does, however, have a compelling market strength, based upon the perception that their search results are accurate and relevant. If, as it appears, the results are skewed by algorithms which falsely tag links as spam, then the accuracy and relevance of their search results are reasonably in doubt.

As a responsible business in the information services business, one would think that they would desire to have the best and most useful results. Might one be wrong to believe this?

---

As an aside, it would be prudent for the gentle readers of this forum to refrain from imputing motives, words or thoughts to others as an antecedent to pejorative commentary, unless the subject has actually uttered those same words or expressed those same beliefs in a clear and unambiguous way. To do so is (at best) intellectually sloppy and (at worst) a direct and undeserved attack -- never good form!

 

[RJM62]

I think the point is that the algorithms are flawed.

Is it unreasonable to want algorithms fixed?

Thank you. Or at least to not be arbitrary and capricious in labeling sites as "spammers."

For my part, I'm considering adding "nofollow" tags to all outgoing links on the forum in question. It would be easy to do, but it's kind of a shame. I rarely come across spammy links except from new sign-ups, who are immediately banned and their accounts deleted. The landing sites that legit links point to deserve to receive credit for their good content, not be punished for it.

-Rich

 

[Everskyward]

I think the point is that the algorithms are flawed.

Is it unreasonable to want algorithms fixed?

Can they be fixed to differentiate link spam from valid links? I sure don't know, but Rich seems to think it would take human intervention. I don't see how that is logistically possible without a huge labor expense.

 

[mikea]

Wait, so you're supposed to hate Google because Google determines how to present Google's data on Google's site?

Got it.

 

[flyingron]

Yeah, I get the same nonsense on the forum I run. I generally tell them to take a hike. THey can contact the poster who put the stuff on the site if they want (we leave the ability to delete the info with them). Unless they can file a DMCA takedown or there is some abusive information, we keep hands off.

It's not google's faults that these "SEO whores" get upset at google's formula.

 

[RJM62]

Can they be fixed to differentiate link spam from valid links? I sure don't know, but Rich seems to think it would take human intervention. I don't see how that is logistically possible without a huge labor expense.

I doubt a robot could do it accurately. I don't think human review would be a huge expense, though, if the review is limited to those sites that are about to be classified as spammers -- especially if the work were offshored. This is not the kind of work that requires a rocket surgeon.

Besides, Google is taking action that can hurt innocent companies, who in most cases don't even know the links have been posted, and in any case can't do anything about it. How do you prevent someone to posting a link to your content? And if the link is legit and the content is good, why should you have to disown it (which is the only recourse Google offers to webmasters)?

In other words, the fact that not hurting someone costs money doesn't mean you're free to hurt someone.

It's like a car inspection. Many people fail their car inspections and have to pay hundreds of dollars in repair costs because some component in the emissions system fails, theoretically causing the possibility of increased emissions. Another example would be an ordinance requiring you to put a fence around an in-ground pool so toddlers and drunks can't wander into it and drown. Or you may be required to fix a crack in your sidewalk so someone doesn't trip on it. The examples are endless. Sometimes it costs money to protect others from harm.

Unless you're Google, that is. Google is free to hurt or destroy someone's business because a piece of code decided that they are spammers. That's perfectly okay.

-Rich

 

[flyingron]

Besides, Google is taking action that can hurt innocent companies, who in most cases don't even know the links have been posted, and in any case can't do anything about it. How do you prevent someone to posting a link to your content? And if the link is legit and the content is good, why should you have to disown it (which is the only recourse Google offers to webmasters)?

Google isn't obliged to be "fair" but they do the best they can. They don't have to give you the ability to disavow links either. At least people know the rules. I'm not even clear what "harm" being a few notches below in the search order is. If you want to be sure PAY GOOGLE for better placement. If you're a rating whore and a cheapskate, at least google gives you the disavow procedure to do so.

 

[RJM62]

Google isn't obliged to be "fair" but they do the best they can. They don't have to give you the ability to disavow links either. At least people know the rules. I'm not even clear what "harm" being a few notches below in the search order is. If you want to be sure PAY GOOGLE for better placement. If you're a rating whore and a cheapskate, at least google gives you the disavow procedure to do so.

You make Google sound like some of the mafiosi I knew in Brooklyn when I was a kid. The problem is that the more I think about it, the more apt that comparison seems.

-Rich

 

[Everskyward]

It's like a car inspection. Many people fail their car inspections and have to pay hundreds of dollars in repair costs because some component in the emissions system fails, theoretically causing the possibility of increased emissions. Another example would be an ordinance requiring you to put a fence around an in-ground pool so toddlers and drunks can't wander into it and drown. Or you may be required to fix a crack in your sidewalk so someone doesn't trip on it. The examples are endless. Sometimes it costs money to protect others from harm.

Unless you're Google, that is. Google is free to hurt or destroy someone's business because a piece of code decided that they are spammers. That's perfectly okay.

Are you advocating a regulation which would prevent Google (and others) from doing this? How else are you going to prevent it?

 

[RJM62]

Are you advocating a regulation which would prevent Google (and others) from doing this? How else are you going to prevent it?

No, the only thing that would make it worse would be for the government to get involved. Ideally, I'd like Google to pretend that they're an ethical business and do it voluntarily; but that's a pipe dream, too.

Probably the only way it would get solved would be if enough site operators who have been hurt filed a massive class-action suit against Google. It would be a tough case to prove, though.

-Rich

 

[Everskyward]

No, the only thing that would make it worse would be for the government to get involved. Ideally, I'd like Google to pretend that they're an ethical business and do it voluntarily; but that's a pipe dream, too.

I didn't think you would be an advocate of more regulation which is why I was curious.

Your examples in the previous post (car inspection, fencing ordinance) were of regulations.

 

[wsuffa]

I received an email from a Web site owner overseas. For reasons that will become apparent momentarily, I can't post a link to the site.

The Web site owner requested that I remove some links that users posted on a forum. I don't own the forum nor the site it's part of, nor do I participate on it as a member. I basically just maintain it and evict the occasional spammer.

The complaint of the person who contacted me was that he found out that Google was penalizing his site for "link spamming" because several forum users had posted links to his site because it provided answers to questions that other forum users had asked. They weren't "compensated links" or any other sort of spam. They were placed by users solely because the landing site answered questions that other users had asked.

I understand Google's desire to attack link spamming because it messes with their algos. But the links in question are not spam. They were posted by the users because the landing content was good: And even 10 seconds of human review would have made that obvious. But because Google is loath to use humans rather than robots to do these sorts of things -- even when other companies' or sites revenues' could be damaged by Google's actions -- Google simply decided that the links were spam.

The end result is that Google is punishing site owners for creating good, relevant content, simply because their robots are too stupid to distinguish between spam and links placed by real people to point to helpful content; and Google as a company is too arrogant to review the links before penalizing the landing site owners.

This is one reason why I've become reluctant to post links here and in other forums. By trying to point other members to good, relevant content on other sites, I could be hurting those sites and their owners or webmasters.

I hate Google more and more every day. If my prayers are someday answered and Google goes out of business, it will make the Internet Web a much better place.

-Rich

It is not in Google's interest to fix the algorithm. If folks post helpful links elsewhere, it detracts from Google's ability to be the fount of information & the place where people go first to find things. Rewarding helpful information that's obtained outside of Google's world detracts from it's ability to collect data and monetize the information.

So why should they fix it.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Google, ranging from the obsessive data collection that harms privacy (and provides fodder for three-letter-agencies) and doesn't allow the user to know all of what's been collected to behaviours that in some circles border on anti-trust. But I can't fault them for using their power to ensure that they protect their own interests.

 

[poadeleted21]

I received an email from a Web site owner overseas. For reasons that will become apparent momentarily, I can't post a link to the site.

The Web site owner requested that I remove some links that users posted on a forum. I don't own the forum nor the site it's part of, nor do I participate on it as a member. I basically just maintain it and evict the occasional spammer.

The complaint of the person who contacted me was that he found out that Google was penalizing his site for "link spamming" because several forum users had posted links to his site because it provided answers to questions that other forum users had asked. They weren't "compensated links" or any other sort of spam. They were placed by users solely because the landing site answered questions that other users had asked.

I understand Google's desire to attack link spamming because it messes with their algos. But the links in question are not spam. They were posted by the users because the landing content was good: And even 10 seconds of human review would have made that obvious. But because Google is loath to use humans rather than robots to do these sorts of things -- even when other companies' or sites revenues' could be damaged by Google's actions -- Google simply decided that the links were spam.

The end result is that Google is punishing site owners for creating good, relevant content, simply because their robots are too stupid to distinguish between spam and links placed by real people to point to helpful content; and Google as a company is too arrogant to review the links before penalizing the landing site owners.

This is one reason why I've become reluctant to post links here and in other forums. By trying to point other members to good, relevant content on other sites, I could be hurting those sites and their owners or webmasters.

I hate Google more and more every day. If my prayers are someday answered and Google goes out of business, it will make the Internet Web a much better place.

-Rich

I think it's a stretch to claim Google is costing anyone revenue or punishing anyone for anything via a free advertising venue that you don't even have to request to be added to.

Perhaps you mean they aren't freely helping them as much as they could be.

 

[RJM62]

One good thing came of my annoyance with Google: I switched back to a BlackBerry. It had been eating at me that I was using an Android because it provided Google with that much more information. Now that's one less thing Google in my life.

-Rich

 

[poadeleted21]

One good thing came of my annoyance with Google: I switched back to a BlackBerry. It had been eating at me that I was using an Android because it provided Google with that much more information. Now that's one less thing Google in my life.

-Rich

I still don't understand how google has cost anyone revenue or punished anyone.
I would argue that Google has increased revenue for many without accepting a dime to do so.

 

[wsuffa]

I still don't understand how google has cost anyone revenue or punished anyone.
I would argue that Google has increased revenue for many without accepting a dime to do so.

Well, that's only partially accurate.

You can (but don't have to) pay Google directly to be put in the search results. But even if you don't pay them directly, you are still the commodity being sold because Google is monetizing your presence through advertising and referrals. There is money being made, even if you're not paying directly.

You (the site owner) is punished if the site listing is displayed at a lower position than it would otherwise be under the ordinary prioritization algorithm. IOW, if Google doesn't like something, it'll apply factors in the algorithm to push you to a lower position (e.g. "punish"). There is some evidence that being pushed lower in the rankings (or being omitted) makes it less likely that folks will find you when they're ready to buy.

That said, as a private, non-regulated entity, Google can protect it's own business interest and/or omit you as it chooses. That's perfectly within it's rights.

 

[JeffDG]

Google has abrogated to itself the right to be the sole arbiter of whether a site is engaging in "link spam." That being the case, they owe some measure of due process to site owners that they wish to penalize in this way. The job of a search engine is to categorize and make available relevant content, not to influence that content.

-Rich

Google has arrogated nothing to itself. It has been granted that "power" through the free market, by providing a service to its users. If users think the algorithms don't work, they will go to other providers. They owe nothing to site owners whatsoever.

 

[poadeleted21]

Well, that's only partially accurate.

You can (but don't have to) pay Google directly to be put in the search results. But even if you don't pay them directly, you are still the commodity being sold because Google is monetizing your presence through advertising and referrals. There is money being made, even if you're not paying directly.

You (the site owner) is punished if the site listing is displayed at a lower position than it would otherwise be under the ordinary prioritization algorithm. IOW, if Google doesn't like something, it'll apply factors in the algorithm to push you to a lower position (e.g. "punish"). There is some evidence that being pushed lower in the rankings (or being omitted) makes it less likely that folks will find you when they're ready to buy.

That said, as a private, non-regulated entity, Google can protect it's own business interest and/or omit you as it chooses. That's perfectly within it's rights.

Just put robots.txt in the / directory and don't worry about google.

 

[RJM62]

Google has arrogated nothing to itself. It has been granted that "power" through the free market, by providing a service to its users. If users think the algorithms don't work, they will go to other providers. They owe nothing to site owners whatsoever.

That's true. They're free to be scumbags without any sense of ethics. That's one of the wonderful things about America.

-Rich

 

[Jim Logajan]

Wait, so you're supposed to hate Google because Google determines how to present Google's data on Google's site?

Got it.

"Honesty and Integrity in all we do. Our business practices are beyond reproach. We make money by doing good things."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

Are they living up to their own claimed standards?
How do your automated algorithms rank them?

 

[poadeleted21]

That's true. They're free to be scumbags without any sense of ethics. That's one of the wonderful things about America.

-Rich

Robots.txt, just disassociate your sites from them. How much did this guy pay google to have his revenue decreased by them or be punished by them? If none, then how did they slander his business?

 

[RJM62]

Robots.txt, just disassociate your sites from them.

I don't want to make the forum unsearchable. As with this forum, there's information on there that's useful to people who are interested in that subject matter.

Instead, I've added the "nofollow" attribute to links posted by forum members. That also sucks. Good content should be both rewarded and made easier to find on a search, not punished and banished to obscurity by a robot employed by a company that's too arrogant to accept how incompetent they are. Oh well. C'est la vie.

How much did this guy pay google to have his revenue decreased by them or be punished by them? If none, then how did they slander his business?

I have no idea whether the person who asked me to remove the links has an ongoing business relationship with Google. What difference does that make? Are you asserting that harm cannot be inflicted unless someone has been paid to inflict it? What's that, the Luca Brasi school of business ethics?

The word "relevancy" permeates Google's search business. It has been their claim to fame and the thing that has set them apart since their inception. The search results that users receive are, according to Google, ranked in order of relevancy, which implies (among other things) that the highest-ranked linked sites are the most likely to be legitimate, trustworthy, authoritative, and so forth. That's what Google claims, and has claimed, since day one.

The unavoidable converse of this claim, of course, is that lower-ranked results are less likely to be trustworthy, authoritative, and so forth. This may or may not rise to a level that would make it actionable as defamation in a court of law; but in the very simplest of terms, it's hard to argue against the assumption that most users consider higher-ranked sites to likely be "better" than lower-ranked results.

Compare this for a moment to others who render opinions for a living, such as food critics. A food critic can make or destroy a restaurant's reputation, In fact, there have been some successful lawsuits filed against food critics who did exactly that. There does come a point when someone's publicly-expressed opinion crosses a line and becomes defamation.

What's ironic, however, is that most food critics can't be bought. They take themselves much too seriously to consider taking a bribe, so the worst offense they could commit would be civil defamation.

Not so Google.

Because fewer than one percent of users have attention spans long enough to read past the first three pages of search results, Google offers another option if you want to appear on page one: You can pay to be there! No need to worry about such bothers as being reliable and building up a reputation. Pshaw. Just be the highest bidder, and you can be right there on the top of page one.

So unlike your average food critic, Google's offerings don't stop at civil defamation. For your convenience and their profit, they also provide their bribery and extortion services. Did their robot banish your site to page 974 of the results? No worries. Google Penguin walks, but money talks.

A food critic who took money to write a good review would have his reputation destroyed. He might also be on the hook for criminal charges for fraud, receiving a bribe, and maybe even blackmail if there was coercion before the fact. It could even rise to racketeering or anti-trust violations if it were widespread.

Which is why I find it somewhat amusing that you and others maintain that as long as a site operator hasn't paid Google any money, no harm can be done. What a bunch of nonsense! Who else in the business of publicly rendering opinions would that formula apply to? And who else in the business of publicly rendering opinions, who also provided a way around a negative opinion if the subject paid enough money, would not be considered a whore at best, and a scoundrel as worst?

There was a time when I greatly admired Google, to the point of having been a fanboy. Not any more. Personally, I think their decline started when they went public. Privately-held companies can respect slogans like "Don't be Evil." They can take the long view that maintaining their credibility in the long run is more important than maximizing revenues this afternoon.

But one you go public, not so much. Shareholders don't want to hear that ****. This isn't the market of old, when people bought shares in good companies and often held them for the rest of their lives. That's old-fashioned. Most of the current crop of shareholders don't have long enough attention spans to "buy and hold," and I'm not just talking about the day traders.

The point is that going public put a whole new set of pressures on Google's management, and those pressures have caused the company to wander far from the lofty principles it once revered. Modern shareholders don't want to hear that "Don't Be Evil" bull****. They want profits. Now. Not ten years from now.

(On a distantly-related note, I'd forgotten how much I liked BlackBerries.)

-Rich

 

[poadeleted21]

I don't want to make the forum unsearchable. As with this forum, there's information on there that's useful to people who are interested in that subject matter.

Instead, I've added the "nofollow" attribute to links posted by forum members. That also sucks. Good content should be both rewarded and made easier to find on a search, not punished and banished to obscurity by a robot employed by a company that's too arrogant to accept how incompetent they are. Oh well. C'est la vie.



I have no idea whether the person who asked me to remove the links has an ongoing business relationship with Google. What difference does that make? Are you asserting that harm cannot be inflicted unless someone has been paid to inflict it? What's that, the Luca Brasi school of business ethics?

The word "relevancy" permeates Google's search business. It has been their claim to fame and the thing that has set them apart since their inception. The search results that users receive are, according to Google, ranked in order of relevancy, which implies (among other things) that the highest-ranked linked sites are the most likely to be legitimate, trustworthy, authoritative, and so forth. That's what Google claims, and has claimed, since day one.

The unavoidable converse of this claim, of course, is that lower-ranked results are less likely to be trustworthy, authoritative, and so forth. This may or may not rise to a level that would make it actionable as defamation in a court of law; but in the very simplest of terms, it's hard to argue against the assumption that most users consider higher-ranked sites to likely be "better" than lower-ranked results.

Compare this for a moment to others who render opinions for a living, such as food critics. A food critic can make or destroy a restaurant's reputation, In fact, there have been some successful lawsuits filed against food critics who did exactly that. There does come a point when someone's publicly-expressed opinion crosses a line and becomes defamation.

What's ironic, however, is that most food critics can't be bought. They take themselves much too seriously to consider taking a bribe, so the worst offense they could commit would be civil defamation.

Not so Google.

Because fewer than one percent of users have attention spans long enough to read past the first three pages of search results, Google offers another option if you want to appear on page one: You can pay to there! No need to worry about such bothers as being reliable and building up a reputation. Pshaw. Just be the highest bidder, and you can be right there on the top of page one.

So unlike your average food critic, Google's offerings don't stop at civil defamation. For your convenience and their profit, they also provide their bribery and extortion services. Did their robot banish your site to page 974 of the results? No worries. Google Penguin walks, but money talks.

A food critic who took money to write a good review would have his reputation destroyed. He might also be on the hook for criminal charges for fraud, receiving a bribe, and maybe even blackmail if there was coercion before the fact. It could even rise to racketeering if it were widespread

Which is why I find it somewhat amusing that you and others maintain that as long as a site operator hasn't paid Google any money, no harm can be done. What a bunch of nonsense! Who else in the business of publicly rendering opinions would that formula apply to? And who else in the business of publicly rendering opinions, who also provided a way around a negative opinion if the subject paid enough money, would not be considered a whore at best, and a scoundrel as worst?

There was a time when I greatly admired Google, to the point of having been a fanboy. Not any more. Personally, I think their decline started when they went public. Privately-held companies can respect slogans like "Don't be Evil." They can take the long view that maintaining their credibility in the long run is more important than maximizing revenues this afternoon.

But one you go public, not so much. Shareholders don't want to hear that ****. This isn't the market of old, when people bought shares in good companies and often held them for the rest of their lives. That's old-fashioned. Most of the current crop of shareholders don't have long enough attention spans to "buy and hold," and I'm not just talking about the day traders.

The point is that going public put a whole new set of pressures on Google's management, and those pressures have caused the company to wander far from the lofty principles it once revered. Stockholders don't want to hear that bull****. They want profits. Now. Not ten years from now.

(On a distantly-related note, I'd forgotten how much I liked BlackBerries.)

-Rich

Food critics can be slanderous. Google simply takes "pictures" of various places on the the internet and aggregates them according to their algorithm. If you'd prefer them not to....robots.txt

I'm still failing to see how google has punished or hurt anyone by simply copy/pasting their URL into their database.

User-Agent: googlebot Disallow: /*

I'm not really a fan of "opt-out" as opposed to "opt-in" but that's simple enough.

Claiming that Google is punishing or costing revenue is like me claiming that WalMart is hurting my business because they won't let me put up a billboard in their parking lots how I see fit and for free of course.


Google indexes billions and billions of websites. Perfection will not be had.

I've watched with my own eyes and seen places hire marketing people to join forums and get involved and every now and then drop a link in. Some of the biggest aviation vendors do it. I only caught on to it after I found this one guy had a weird devotion to an aviation interior company. 98% of his posts had nothing to do with aviation interiors. Took me 2 years to figure it out and I had access to the database, then I started digging for more. Yep, IPs traced back to the same marketing firm. A casual human observer sitting behind a desk in Mountain View won't catch this but the bot might.

Honestly, it sounds like the guy in question has done just that and now regrets it. If I designed googlebot, I'd probably kick him too.

It's a cat and mouse game.

Figuring that google indexes billions of sites and they have thousands if not millions of people trying to "game the system" every day and almost everyone is happy with results they produce... I'd say they're doing damn good job.

Though, I can see some exceptions, I think it would be expected that a non-affiliated forum for something like say Visual Studio Users would have a ton of links to microsoft.com.

 

[wsuffa]

Speaking of punishment, it appears that Google may be punishing Expedia. Google does own ITA software, an airfare comparison site, but you can't purchase tickets (yet) via ITA.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/did-google-punish-expedia-pulling-rap-genius-move

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231001

I will say this: as Google accumulates more web sites and offers more services, they will have to be very, very careful in doling out punishments that affect competitors. I remember when Sabre got hit by the Feds for prioritzing AA flights over all others.