| 8:11 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 8:15 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am well aware that they may not mean it. But it's in their TOS in plain text :)
| 8:21 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No. You are being highly imaginative.
You can't cut and paste google search results onto a page of yours. You can't make a site that uses Google search results with your own ads. You can't make mysearchenginething.com and pirate the Google search results.
| 8:26 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Then, what does this sentence mean:
You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons
| 8:29 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see it as applying to SEO. However, I could believe that SEO may not have been their original intention for that sentence.
It's clumsily, or maybe intentionally loosely worded:
|...to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales. |
Does that mean you can cut and paste the serps into your own website, or cloak the first ten positions in the serps, as long as you're doing it for non-commercial reasons?
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:39 pm (utc) on Feb. 19, 2006]
| 8:38 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Agreed that it is clumsy wording. Especially considering the more specific wording in the next sentence:
|You may not take the results from a Google search and reformat and display them, or mirror the Google home page or results pages on your Web site |
| 8:46 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I also find the heading interesting -- Personal Use Only -- and how they state that the "non-commercial use" applies to the search itself, with AdWords and AdSense being the services for commercial use.
Can we say "hint hint -- use AdWords and AdSense if you want to draw traffic to your site, but do not employ SEO methods, as these give us no money" :)
Feels like ulterior motive. ;)
[edited by: DrDoc at 8:48 pm (utc) on Feb. 19, 2006]
| 8:46 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah the context of it changes the meaning. But I still think that "thou shalt not exploit us" applies to SEO when it comes to anything beyond making your site spiderable etc., if not explicitly in that paragraph.
| 8:49 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Agreed. But that one sentence alone gives Google the right to drop/ban your site if it becomes too successful using SEO alone.
| 9:25 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The wording and context is clear, especially in separating out adsense which you can use. If you are serious, you shouldn't be. It's just silly to pretend it is about seo stuff.
| 9:30 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What kind of commercial non-SEO use might one employ which falls under "increase traffic to your Web site" through the SERPs? :)
I think martinibuster said it well:
|I see it as applying to SEO. However, I could believe that SEO may not have been their original intention for that sentence. |
They certainly do not want to be exploited or targeted through SEO. They want their own nifty index to figure out which sites are most authoritative for any given topic. It's a given that Google is against SEO itself (beyond making a site spiderable), since it will skew the index. It's like doping in sports.
| 9:38 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"What kind of commercial non-SEO use might one employ which falls under "increase traffic to your Web site" through the SERPs? :)"
Copying results. Framing a serps page. C'mon, its obvious.
| 9:52 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Recently we discovered scammers are framing some of my sites and putting their Adsense unit at the top of my index page to in effect steal my income.
Hope that is what they are referring to by referring to using Google SEO to get traffic and making money from it! It's very serious and needs to be stopped, since its basically fraud and theft of my potential traffic and adsense income.
We are heavily using G's inanchor: or inurl:domainnamedotcom search to find the scammers and reporting them all to G, Adsense-Abuse, their domain registars and ISP's as fast as possible. We all need to do that.
[edited by: trader at 9:57 pm (utc) on Feb. 19, 2006]
| 9:55 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Copying results and framing the SERPs lead people away from your site ;-)
Besides, they mention that next anyway ...
If nothing else, the sentence forbids you to use Froogle for selling products :-P
| 11:31 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A creative lawyer might say that Adwords is also a google service. :)
| 11:55 pm on Feb 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|As used in this agreement, "Google Services" does not include the Adwords or Adsense programs. |
Better be mighty creative then ;)
| 6:52 am on Feb 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One has to define SEO to say that this applies to SEO.
What some would call SEO, I call proper use of attributes, elements, page structure, navigation and overall site architecture. I can justify everything under W3C recommendations, peer to peer networking and marketing.
Take away search engines and these things dont change much.
| 7:52 am on Feb 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ummm .. so froogle and sitemaps are google services then?
| 7:56 am on Feb 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Could they be referring to things like selling rank checkers, pagerank predictor tools, and pagerank display tools?
| 9:50 am on Feb 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
...or is this more to do with Google's recent win over the cache issue, setting a precedence that its quite okay to cache anyones site. (As referenced by Bretts bot blog.)
| 11:48 am on Feb 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interesting would be to know, if this wording DrDre is referring to, is rather new. Anybody knows, when it apeard first?
| 10:12 pm on Feb 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The exclusion of AdSense and AdWords is a recent change. The other stuff has been around since the beginning of time.
| 10:24 pm on Feb 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I work on SEO for a large corporation and our lawyers have cautioned us about violating the Google TOS, even accidentally.
Especially because, interpreted loosely, even checking the rank of our corporate site could be considered a violation of the part about "personal, non-commercial use only." Even more so if I use my free non-commercial API key.
Not sure what the answer is. I just say as little as possible when interacting with the corporate lawyers. And I continue to check our site's rank.