| 11:11 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I found out myself recently that the phrase "Google bombing" refers to off-site anchor text. So, I might have a site about widgets, and someone could put up a thousand links to my site using "fool" as the anchor text. Even though my site doesn't use the word "fool" at all, I could still be ranked number one for that word. That's what it's supposed to mean. I don't know if it's true.
| 11:18 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
so you could hav a thousand links on the same page of another site that lead to your site and be ranked #1?
| 11:21 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>so you could hav a thousand links on the same page of another site that lead to your site and be ranked #1?
I think it has more to do with filling out a thousand guestbooks and blogs. At the time that it started, those links were rated higher at Google than they are now.
| 11:25 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So what if you went and got a lot of free webpages off say geocities. Could you possibly link to your site that way and improve search engine rankings?
| 11:31 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Try searching Google for 'miserable failure':
The Google bomb does indeed work but I would advise strongly against using it for commercial sites... Google is already making blog links worth less and many SEO's won't touch the bomb for fear gGoogle will directly penalise them. If you really want to go for it but don't start crying if it goes off in your face. :D
| 11:42 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Are u by any chance a reader of the magazine “The Economist”..:-)
| 12:28 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Um... No- Never heard of it.
| 3:28 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google bombing was coined here on WebmasterWorld in 99...
actually it was originally called "google rf'ing" and was also coined on WebmasterWorld.
| 3:37 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 4:49 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I heared that people use it to get their sites #1 for a certain keyword. Anyone have any idea how they do this? Or perhaps another method of search engine promotion.
"Google bombing" in the way it's used for stunts like "miserable failure" isn't likely to get your site to #1 for any keyword phrase that is actually valuable. Consider that the examples people read about in more mainstream sources, examples like "miserable failure," are terms for which no sites are actually optimized.
It'll take a lot more than "Google bombing" to succeed in positioning for any term that's actually worthwhile.
As for "another method of search engine promotion," well... that's what much of this site is about. Plan to invest a lot of time reading, and you'll find there's a lot to learn.
>> Are u by any chance a reader of the magazine “The Economist”..:-)
If you're guessing that because you read about the "miserable failure" thing in The Economist, you should realized that it's been written about in dozens of magazines (maybe hundreds) and thousands of websites.
| 8:49 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
'Google Bombing' is a technique used to get sites that don't actually relate to the keywords specified ranked highly for that keyword.
These days it is not generally used to describe the now common and acceptable practice of anchor text. These days I only hear it used in in the context of spamming a site.
Such as the recent Jewish outcry against an anti-semetic site being ranked number one for the term 'Jew'. They all clubbed together to 'Google Bomb' the offensive site using the word 'Jew' in the links. As you can see now, that site does not show up at number one anymore.
This does of course beg the question of whether competitors can have their rivals removed by bombing them?
| 8:42 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
wow!...who let the dogs out…?
...sorry if I in any way "offended" your knowledge about “Google Bombing” .
I wasn’t my intention. I was relating it to one article that I seen among thousands++ of other on this topic over the years ex. try “Google Bombing” on Google search......
You could have wished as a new user and because of my “incompetents” that this could have started like this:
"I saw an article in a newspaper in T.E. regarding “google bombing” ,did you read the same article and is it because of that that you posted your comment “
“Hello yoo_daa, as a new user we want to welcome you to our forum, to your information we have had this topic here on WebmasterWorld since 1999 and it was called “"google rf'ing" back then, enjoy your stay here and don’t be afraid of asking questions”
Maybe its to much to wish, but heck, I’m still waiving my tail, and I hope you are doing the same…..…woff..woff...
Back to the topic….if you “Google Bomb” a site using outbound links with “widgets” in anchor text from own sites that you control, isn’t it very easy for Google to “penalise” those responsible manipulating the SERPS, having in mind that they got their IP’s…?
| 8:49 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google Bombing is just a term for normal off page SEO used a different way. The original poster sounded like they heard of some new way to game google. It is not that. Anchor text no matter what you call it will help you rank better. Google bombing is just when you do it to somebody else in a negative way.
| 11:54 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a feeling Google's algorythm proabaly cuts off the value of links to your site after a certain stage. This would explain why it's nigh on impossible to do a bomb with any valuable keywords.
| 12:23 am on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I have a feeling Google's algorythm proabaly cuts off the value of links to your site after a certain stage. This would explain why it's nigh on impossible to do a bomb with any valuable keywords.
I'd say it's more accurately explained this way: results for "valuable" keywords are dominated by sites that are optimized for those searches. That is, they use many techniques beyond simply getting a bunch of links with the search phrase in the anchor text.
For terms that only coincidentally exist and only on a few thousand pages (for example, "miserable failure" before the big google bomb hype) you'll often be able to get away with using one basic element of optimization to get a ranking. Come up with some unique phrase and use it as the title of your index page, and you'll probably be number one for that phrase. But nobody who's really trying to optimize will care, and none of them will be competing with you. Same thing for the well-known "successful google bombings."
| 12:31 am on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>wow!...who let the dogs out…?
Sorry if you felt that either a)you offended anyone, or b)you were treated rudely. Reading the posts that followed yours I don't see any hints of either... speaking for myself, I was simply trying to fill in what seemed to be a blank in your experience with the topic we're discussing here: that is, making the point that it's been widely reported in the "mainstream press" and the odds that anyone else who has heard about it did so in the same outlet that you heard about it from would be quite small.
Anyway, I have to get in the habit of looking at the number of posts for a user when reading a post... and apparently I'm not alone because one thing is lacking here that usually is part of the landscape:
Welcome to WebmasterWorld, yoo_daa and theyuw!
And, my apologies for not saying that earlier...
| 1:15 am on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|results for "valuable" keywords are dominated by sites that are optimized for those searches. |
I realise this but I'm saying there must be some kind of fail safe- otherwise with enough links (millions) you could get to the top of the results for avaen the most sought after keywords. Google must have made it so only so much value can be added by inbound links.
| 2:30 am on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google bombing sometime require only 1 or 2 links (it was on a blog where the archive give you always a second link) depending of the popularity of those terms. A friends link my site with a unusual term like "master of" but in latin. Despite is link is gone from the link: of Google more than a year ago, I still in number one place for that query ;-)
| 4:51 am on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In my experience, it most DEFINITELY works, but it easier for non-competitive keyword.
IF you want to be number 1,2,3 or 4 in the SERPs for a low-competition phrase, optimize for it.
If you want to be number 1 in the SERPs for a low-competition phrase, optimize for it, then get a couple of PR4+ inbound links with that phrase as the anchor text.
Personal experience (success) with this in that last two weeks :)
| 7:42 am on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"master of" in latin. Cool--we need digitalghost to say how to translate that. :)
The thing to bear in mind is that if you go off the beaten path enough, you can rank #1 for almost any nonsense phrase you want. Something like ["five eyed" people eater] returns less than 10 results, so you could totally own the five eyed people eater market--and not just the purple ones, but any color.
Sometimes you see an SEO who guarantees #1 rankings, but the SEO doesn't mention that they'll do it for a really long/unhelpful phrase like "customized red widgets in the tri-state region". If there's only 17 results, it's not too hard to show up #1 for a query, but odds are that not too many people are typing that query. Anyway, just something I've noticed..
| 11:57 am on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Regarding to "miserable mistakes" "G. bombing" on the Official White House site(whitehouse.gov/), surely they didn’t come up with the idea themselves, or...? :)
I can see the dialog: (short version)
- Hey guys, our boss is not doing that well these days so lets boost the popularity among people starting with the SERPS
- Yeah, that’s a great idea, we have to pick a popular keyword not too competitive and well describing of our situation, and then lets get a lot of inbound links to our site with that keyword in anchor text (change the content on our site)
- Got it, what about "miserable mistakes" its has only 128.000 sites indexed at G. and the #1 only have PG 3
- Very, very good keyword, lets start at once
Some of you have experienced it and the rest can see by them self that "G. bombing" is working and it should since the links between web sites are the fundament of G. and indispensable for its function. Probably the initial ranking of web pages still count
a lot(page specific factors, anchor text of inbound links, page rank)
Basically, the PageRank-1 rule proves that the fundamental principle of PageRank works. It is not necessary to a page to have many inbound links to rank well. A single link from a high ranking page can be sufficient.
My point is G. for sure don’t like someone manipulating their service and they can for sure "penalize" individual web pages , I have no doubt in my mind.
Isn’t the reasons they don’t, simply cause they don’t have enough recourses running around playing cops on the web manually, its much cheaper doing it automatically with a tweak in the algo and until they got it fixed episodes like this would continue happening?
| 9:01 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You can also get a Google Bomb from Google! When Google crashes your server by trying to crawl it, you've been Google Bombed!
| 9:15 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You can also get a Google Bomb from Google! When Google crashes your server by trying to crawl it, you've been Google Bombed! |
Funny! Anyone going to mention the bombs they drop on us at each big update? I would personally like to mention the nuclear explosion that is my Adwords budget compared to my recent hand-grenade Adsense participation ...
| 11:45 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Very funny indeed.. :))
| 4:30 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
no, google can't penalize you for incoming links. It would however be a good idea to change the anchor text to synonyms of your keyword as well. Also keep in mind 1000 links won't help you much if they are all page rank 1 or 2...
| 4:44 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Has google bombing ever been effectively exploited by a commercial site? I can see it woeking if one were to 'hijack' a common misspelling of there main keyword.
| 4:49 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|no, google can't penalize you for incoming links. |
| 12:35 am on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|no, google can't penalize you for incoming links. |
Yes really, if they did then people could get their competitors penalised by creating damaging links to them which is out of the competitor's control.
| 1:30 am on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yes really, if they did then people could get their competitors penalised by creating damaging links to them which is out of the competitor's control. |
Even G does not say that this can't happen.