Interesting happenings at Google

[John Scott]

I haven't figured it out yet. It seems to be a filter - a very destructive filter.

http://www.google.com/search?q=inter...eting+research

http://www.google.com/search?q=quality+web+hosting

Both Internet-Marketing-Research.net and Quality-Web-Hosting.net disappeared.

[John Scott]

The "perfect match" penalty theory seems to be viable.

[dgriesbeck]

That would explain a few of the and ed responses over on the WMW forum. It's getting quite crazy over there...

I can't imagine that they'd axe a site based on a perfect match. Could that be a way of easily getting around keyword spammers altogether? Remember, I'm a novice, so bear with my ignorance. Or could it be that they want to make content the true reason you make it to the top?

These are thoughts running through a content writer/small-scale webmaster's mind.

[John Scott]

I think it's an attempt to remove anchor text spamming (google-bombing), but if you think about it, it's impossible to remove Google-bombing without removing legit sites. Like, Quality Web Hosting. It's only natural that the anchor text/page titles/etc all match up "quality web hosting" is the name of the site.

[dgriesbeck]

It would make sense that they try to do that. However, I see your point about Quality Web Hosting. It seems almost that google is trying to squash the use of keyword domain names.
What do you think?

If you have a moment can you clarify or direct me to clarification of the topic of google-bombing, anchor text spamming?

Thanks keep this thread alive...

[sabo]

JohnScott,

I have a few questions: :

Does Google is going through a major update?
Is it valid to say they are going to filter this time using a new algorithm?
Do you think they are going to be filtering the backward link "networks"?

I hope you can guide us with your experience.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PhilC

They have such power these days that they should be held accountable. They certainly have a moral responsibility to websites that they wouldn't have if Google was just one of a number of equally top engines - like it used to be. They may not be legally responsible, but they are definitely morally responsible.

Interesting that you invoke morality here, Phil.

Google has no moral responsibility to anyone - nor should it be claimed that they have - unless webmasters accept that they have a moral responsiblity to not attempt to "blackhat" Google's SERPs in the first place.

I would argue that is blackhat actions that are very much responsible for the continued updating of the Google algo - so as to remove blackhat sites automatically , rather than remove them manually.

Blackhats know what they're doing. To complain when they're penalised for it is simply hypocritically rich.

Webmasters need to accept that when they employ blackhat actions, there are wider consequences. If they want to demand moral responsibility over their websites, then they need to accept that they too need to act morally responsibly.


[EDIT - NOTE - "blackhat" is a term I picked up from WMW - it is interchangable with "non-compliant SEO" aka "non-Ethical SEO"]

[dpam]

If it were a perfect-match penalty, imagine the next round of gaming.. thinking of all the non-perfect but close-enough anchor text links that need to replace the perfect match ones. Geez what a mess that would make of the web. We'd all be sitting here all day figuring out of one word appended was better than one character prepended vs a comma after the third character - oh what fun. This seems just too stupid both for the honest links it penalizes, and for the chaos that would ensue.

Is there any chance it isn't the perfect-match links but rather something about link networks (sites from same org which no-matter how well disguised do all link to each other)? Maybe they build a link matrix and see the incest and then clamp down on it. Pure guess on my part.

[Gede]

My 2c:

I think its a little to early to draw conclusons. They may implement some new rules, but I think that that they have messed up. Google is just in a "bug" state. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if this mess stays on for another few days, and they will do a rollback. They have simply lost it.

[I, Brian]

Exactly - there's simply speculation at the moment. Google has implemented what may yet be a very significant change to the algo. We've seen this before where results were askew for days - even weeks, perhaps, in some particular areas - but there's a general settling down after.

SEO is a dynamic concern - it always has been - and it comes with degrees of risk for different action. The process now is simply to observe how Google appears to have changed, and then adapt to it. That's SEO.

And no matter what "rules" Google implements, you can be sure that there will always be people motivated to break those rules. It's not a moral decision - it's not a moral war - just one set of business decisions offset against another set.

[Mel]

Hi John:

I doubt it is an anti-google bombing filter, since I can see nests of sites that use identical links across the bottom of every page in 20 sites, and they are still ranking well on competitive terms.

I, Like Gede, notice that the serps all seem to rely more on words in the page title which are in the first part of the phrase, but that certainly is not the whole story. I have a hunch that they may have totally discounted internal link anchor text, but can't really test that at the moment since there seems to be so much link information not yet factored in. For instance at the moment I have only 8 backlinks showing, and none from places like DMOZ or the Google directory, or from pages with a PR of 5 with few outbound links. ATW finds 350 plus links and many of them are links that should show up in G, unless of course they have changed the criterea for displaying links.

[Gede]

My guess:

google works like this:

URL dbase.

apply ranking algo nr1.
apply ranking algo nr2.
apply ranking algo nr3.
apply ranking algo nr4.
apply ranking algo nr5.
etc...

final results, publish. (or the results are published during the application of the ranking algo's, probaly cause the dbase is rather large)

It seems that google is stuck somewhere between applying algo's.
Thats why we see those "funny results". Sometimes they already seem to do a rollback.

[PhilC]

I, Brian.

(1) You cannot say that because one thing doesn't have a moral context, nothing does - which is what you tried to say. When a company has a huge influence over all websites, to the extent that it can decide which live and which die, as Google does, then it has a moral obligation to all websites. Don't be confused by the use of a word.

(2) You can argue that it is blackhat actions that have caused the current fiasco and you'd be right as long as you understand that ALL seo, including such things as Title tweaks, is blackhat. The only whitehat seo, as far as Google is concerned, is advising websites as to linkages, copy, and which directories to submit to. You can read it yourself on Google's website.

(3) The sites that have been affected by this update have nothing to do with whitehat/blackhat seo. They are all affected, and all sides are complaining about it. Equally, both black and white hats are unaffected. Your comment tries to make out that it is blackhat sites that have been affected and whos owners are affected, but you haven't been following what's going on, and your comment is incorrect. The effects are across the board.

[John Scott]

Blackhats seem to be doing fine in the SERP's. I see a lot of good sites being dropped, not blackhat sites.

[dave conz]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Blackhats seem to be doing fine in the SERP's. I see a lot of good sites being dropped, not blackhat sites.

A damn blackhat just stole one of my good #1 spots.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PhilC

I, Brian.

(1) You cannot say that because one thing doesn't have a moral context, nothing does - which is what you tried to say. When a company has a huge influence over all websites, to the extent that it can decide which live and which die, as Google does, then it has a moral obligation to all websites. Don't be confused by the use of a word.

(2) You can argue that it is blackhat actions that have caused the current fiasco and you'd be right as long as you understand that ALL seo, including such things as Title tweaks, is blackhat. The only whitehat seo, as far as Google is concerned, is advising websites as to linkages, copy, and which directories to submit to. You can read it yourself on Google's website.

(3) The sites that have been affected by this update have nothing to do with whitehat/blackhat seo. They are all affected, and all sides are complaining about it. Equally, both black and white hats are unaffected. Your comment tries to make out that it is blackhat sites that have been affected and whos owners are affected, but you haven't been following what's going on, and your comment is incorrect. The effects are across the board.

Phil C,

(1) No SE has no moral obligation to any website that may be dropped from the SERPs, any more than a website that rises in the rankings has any moral obligation to those websites that it knocks down the index.

The moment you begin that argument is the time you justify SEO as having moral obligations to the SE. I'm sure I've seen you argue against this particular point before.

(2) Yes, this was raised before and you are right that Google isn't keen on the prospect of SEO in general.

Some people, though, would make an implicit distintion between the practice of utilising <h1> headers in an attempt to raise rankings, as opposed to someone creatnig 1500 interlinked domains for the sole purpose of dominating the SERPs. That's where the difference between "whitehat"/"compliant" SEO vs "blackhat"/"non-compliance" is so marked. It also shows the difference between what Google tolerates, and what Google implicitly writes against the use of.

You almost sound embarrassed to reference blackhat actions unless you can find a moral justification for it. As we've said before, business does not run on moral decisions - merely business decisions. That's the part blackhat SEO plays, but it comes at a price that is known from the start - of possible removal from the SERPs for those sites. That's not a moral issue - just business decisions.

(3) I certainly mentioned that effects were apparently reported across the board - though in different areas. What I speculated about is that an important part of the Florida update is intended to automatically penalise blackhat tactics. That would be a logical assumption, given Google's record of trying to remove sites automatically rather than manually. That whitehat tactics in some areas be affected would be expected to be a natural consequence of a major algo change - we'll see how the dust settles, though.


John Scott, certainly I'd be surprised if Google had invented a way to remove all blackhat actions at a sweep. I am not entirely sure that would be either realistic, or even desirable. I see SEs vs SEOs as existing in an interdependent relationship, and that without the one, the other becomes irrelevant. The distinction of "whitehat"/"compliance" vs "blackhat"/"non-compliance" merely represent generalised extremes of SEO - both of which have difference areas of "best use" application.

[John Scott]

(1) No SE has no moral obligation to any website that may be dropped from the SERPs, any more than a website that rises in the rankings has any moral obligation to those websites that it knocks down the index.

No, not to any website owner. To the users of the search engine. Just like Fox News or CNN, they have a moral obligation to provide unbiased results.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

John Scott, certainly I'd be surprised if Google had invented a way to remove all blackhat actions at a sweep. I am not entirely sure that would be either realistic, or even desirable. I see SEs vs SEOs as existing in an interdependent relationship, and that without the one, the other becomes irrelevant. The distinction of "whitehat"/"compliance" vs "blackhat"/"non-compliance" merely represent generalised extremes of SEO - both of which have difference areas of "best use" application.

Nobody's talking about blackhats being removed. I don't see Blackhats gone, do you? The only sites I see gone from the index are good, quality sites.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

No, not to any website owner. To the users of the search engine. Just like Fox News or CNN, they have a moral obligation to provide unbiased results.

Both CNN and Fox are under absolutely no moral obligation to give unbiased results. That's why they have their own specific biases in the first place. They serve markets - it's a marketing decision only, not a moral decision.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Nobody's talking about blackhats being removed. I don't see Blackhats gone, do you? The only sites I see gone from the index are good, quality sites.

Indeed - I'm speculating upon Google's motivations - the general SE vs SEO battle.