| 7:51 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|try and Googlebomb a competitors legitimately ranked site out of the SERPS? |
thats google bowling ..different .related ..and is possible ..many examples ..
which is why G say that there is virtually nothing that a competitor can do to harm your sites ranking ..they dont say it's impossible ..'cos it isn't.
| 8:22 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
How is this different than the premise of how current SEO's work with varying inbound text links and getting deep links to related pages? Isn't he really just saying that sending 5000 links to one page for the same term doesn't work anymore?
Essentially, we already knew this stuff.
| 8:34 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think an important aspect missing from that statement is that this tweak might be specific for uncommon phrases that don't normally have a relevant result. |
I think you are spot on here MB.
I have a googlebomb working for a moderately competitive phrase. The page doesn't have the keyphrase text on it, only in the links pointing to it.
| 9:11 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If they actually HAVE instituted the new policy, "WHY are they announcing it to the outside world?" |
Maybe because the outside world includes non-SEO types who were critical of political googlebombs thinking they were "editorial commentary" from Google.
|I can't help but think that this new defusing of G-Bombs has caused the collateral damage many webmasters are referring to as the 950 penalty. |
Not sure I can agree here. One characteristic of a googlebomb is that the search phrase exists mostly or only in backlink anchor text. Not so with the 950 penalty, where on-page occuranceithe rule. Plus the 950 penalty predates the googlebomb fix.
| 9:28 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Do we know when the Google-bomb fix was implemented? It doesn't seem like a far reach to believe that if Google has adjusted their link analysis, then maybe we are being scooped up with it.
I mean, don't the links that we webmasters get use targeted anchor text, just like a googlebomb?
| 10:25 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You must remember that when a company like Google gets so deeply imbedded in the social fabric..that they must go horizontal with their policies as they pertain to the political landscape...and what the political landscape can dish back if offended (as in "failures" ;-)
| 11:10 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe because the outside world includes non-SEO types who were critical of political googlebombs thinking they were "editorial commentary" from Google. |
This is exactly my point Tedster. (ergo, my China comment)
Others can choose to believe that something was done on a "scalar" level, but I don't buy it. If I can find 6,7,8 REAL googlebombs (ie "pranks" of sites ranking for irrelevant and meaningless terms that having NOTHING to do with the site and not appearing on the page)
AND have Google making a public "announcement" AND have an official G employee going out of his way to comment on this ONE issue when so many others are never "commentated" on, then something smells fishy.
If it's so "fixed" on an algo level, why are they asking for reports of other googlebombs they don't KNOW about? lol come on!
Again, like most PUBLIC G announcements, alot of bluster, little substance, and always some "other" agenda to scare and deter the unknowing reader.
But the "miserable failure" fiasco was never about a "problem" with the algo. In fact, the algo was working EXACTLY as it should be.
Sites "democratically" voting on describing 2 sites with appropriate (at least in the views of the sites pointing the links) anchor text.
If i want to describe Google as "the most corrupt company ever" and 5000 other sites agree and use the same anchor text, then that's my "democratic" vote, and I'll be darned if Google filters the results because Google wants to maintain some facade that they've created AI.
(or is afraid of political bodies putting pressure on them)
Google doesn't get it both ways. In court, either their algo is "determined by non-human interference" or it isn't.
You don't get to filter results because people get "confused" about how the algo works.
Are you evil Google or just without moral sense?
Nevermind, you go make that money...you never believed in "free speech" anyways.
| 11:30 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Being attentive to Public Relations is not the same thing as lying. Yes the Googlers wrote that blog entry out of PR concerns. But they also allowed the infamous and political googlebombs to roll on for years -- even placing an "Adwords" disclaimer on the SERP rather than hand-tweak it.
So why would they start lying now, with the elections over and all that? I don't buy it. I say they made some moderately effective algo change, and they crowed about it a bit to make sure it got noticed -- but there are still loopholes in it. A hand-tweak would look a lot better.
Never forget, algos are written by humans to accomplish human ends. They still are algorithms, not hand fixed results. I would never claim Google doesn't hand-fix some results -- I'm nearly 100% sure they do. Just not in this case.
| 11:36 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I ask a very simple question again.
Why are they tweaking the results to begin with?!
And give me a break, Google "lies" about all kinds of things. Sure they may have "adjusted" the algo to ensure no Fortune 500 or .gov sites rank for "meaningless" terms, but that's the same as manual intervention.
And it goes against everything the algo is "supposed" to do in the first place. Not to mention, is legally shaky when Bobswebsite.com goes into court and says G purposely tanked my rankings and G claims they have "no manual control" of how sites rank.
| 11:42 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Oh NO! "Miserable failure" now leads to my personal site :)
Good move on goog's part, some people took them literally and blamed google for "liberal bias" and so on.
| 11:56 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>If it's so "fixed" on an algo level, why are they asking for reports of other googlebombs they don't KNOW about? lol come on!
Mr. Cutts never said it was fixed. In fact he made it a point on both blogs that it would simply reduce their effectiveness:
|Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs...We wouldn't claim that this change handles every prank that someone has attempted. |
| 11:57 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I ask a very simple question again. Why are they tweaking the results to begin with?! |
Google tweaks their algorithm all the time -- weekly and even more often -- trying to improve the quality of the search results for their end user. That's what you do with any algorithm that isn't quite measuring up to its intended purpose -- you keep fine-tuning it.
Tweaking the algo to perform better and hand-fixing the final results are two different things. In this case, the google-bombed results were clearly not what they wanted to serve up, so they found an algorthmic fix, finally, after many years.
Yes, this issue probably got some extra attention because several googlebombs have been a kind of black eye, a PR disaster of sorts.
| 11:57 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ha, that gave me a silly thought.
What if Michael Moore decides to take the whole cultural phenomena and creates a movie called "Miserable Failure"?
Will it be able to rank? Will his site rank? Whitehouse.gov? :P
| 12:01 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Tweaking the algo to perform better and hand-fixing the final results are two different things. In this case, the google-bombed results were clearly not what they wanted to serve up, so they found an algorthmic fix, finally, after many years. |
Considering the only people looking for the terms "miserable failure" are those looking to see where those two sites ranked, I'd call that anti free-speech.
You can defend G all you want, I UNDERSTAND the business reasons...
Doesn't make it morally right, politically right, nor any indication that G is NOT manually putting sites like Wiki in the results to boost Adwords (Remember that thread?! God, i was actually defending Goog.)
| 12:18 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I'd call that anti free-speech. |
Actually, it is very pro-free speech.
Google is not the government. Free speech is about freedom from *government* interference with speech.
Google is a private entity with the freedom to express their opinion (SERPs).
Just as when the moderators decide to edit your post because of a TOS violation or because they just don't like you. They are not violating your freedom of speech,because they are not the government.
<added>And don't get in a huff when I used the term "your post", it was a generic reference. If you are around here long enough you will have posts edited or deleted.</added>
[edited by: BigDave at 12:20 am (utc) on Jan. 27, 2007]
| 12:34 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't quite see the moral angle, or the free speech one for that matter. Google publishes search results, and some people figured out a way to manupiluate those results in ways that went obviously counter to Google's intentions.
So Google created a way to make that manipulation harder to accomplish. If morals really can enter in here at all, it's not moral to allow yourself to manipulated, and probably even less moral to do the manipulating.
But putting an end to the manipulation? That's quite moral.
| 12:37 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ahh Dave, wondering when you'd show.
First, spare me the Google's Free Speech rant.
I've said in this and many other threads, you can only go so long claiming "free speech", purposely filtering results, and then claiming impartiality in court.
That's a legal argument that I'm SURE will bite them in the back in the future...oh wait, it already did. (Thank you Belgium)
And obviously you and Tedster aren't seeing the LONG-TERM picture.
With Y! and MSN clearly not capable of competing against G in the SE wars. How long before, the "conspiracy theories" of niche sites purposefully being filtered in favor of bigname-selleverything.com being hand manipulated(err..algorithmically placed) into the results for WHATEVER REASON? Be it political, financial, just because they don't like YOUR posts in this forum?
Yes, now tell us how G won't fall down THAT slippery slope cause we all know people with LOTS of power always do the "moral" thing and never try to screw the little guy to get more power and money.
| 12:46 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So back on topic -- has anyone got a clue, from the bombs that still work perhaps, how this fix works in detail? Do the succesfully bombed pages still have no occurrance of the search term on the page?
| 12:47 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As far as I can see the the results where changed a little... but some of old "google bombs" are still there - hence, "click here", and my personal favorite "get laid tonight" - the "bomber"-site has moved a little down in favour of "key-word-in-domain-name" sites...
This also answers questions - if google bombs are used for "commercial purposes" and "sending 5000 links to one page for the same term doesn't work anymore"...
| 12:51 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|So Google created a way to make that manipulation harder to accomplish. If morals really can enter in here at all, it's not moral to allow yourself to manipulated, and probably even less moral to do the manipulating. |
Wow, what country to you live in?
Manipulated? Again, the algo was doing EXACTLY what it was supposed to.
The liberals chose to "vote" for the white house.
The conservatives "voted" for Michael Moore. (poor choice, IMO. They could have done much better)
Saying the SERPS were manipulated in the equivalent of saying that candidates who understand the popular vote vs. the electoral college and choose to go for MOST electoral votes v. the most popular votes are "manipulating" the political system.
As an SEO, I understand that I can link to my favorite widgets store as "click here", "cool", or "widgets store". I also know that if I use "widget store" they have a better chance of being found by others for widgets.
Using that knowledge isn't "manipulating" the SERPS, it's making an INFORMED internet vote for that store.
Just because Google doesn't THINK it's the best widgets store should have NO bearing.
Again, if ANYONE is looking for "miserable failure" they are LOOKING for the whitehouse.gov and michealmoore.com. Period.
I could careless about what political pressures G has come under.
That's the sign of a immoral and corrupt company that simply doesn't say, "Hey, these are the DEMOCRATIC votes for the site, we don't hand manipulate our results because you don't agree"
(An argument they LOVE to make in court when someone claims otherwise)
[edited by: whitenight at 12:58 am (utc) on Jan. 27, 2007]
| 12:53 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|So back on topic -- has anyone got a clue, from the bombs that still work perhaps, how this fix works in detail? |
Back on topic ;)
It doesn't, if 10% or more of the googlebombs that I know about are appearing, then they haven't really fixed anything. They simply hand-edited the results.
| 1:13 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Good move on goog's part, some people took them literally and blamed google for "liberal bias" and so on. |
IMO It's an icy slope when you make special changes (bias?) to the serps in order to correct some percieved 'bias', that wasnt really a bias to begin with.
OK, I'm making my own head hurt. Hopefully the new algo change is for the better.
| 2:04 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Interesting reading but I think GOOG is just blowing smoke up our you know what, as usual.
It is not aboout Googlebombing at all. That is just smething they want ut to ramble about so we don't look at the real thing, what they are actually doing here and how it affects us all.
My theory is that the lates algo change is more than just stopping Google bombs because that is not really any problem. Why would it and why is "Click Here' still there if they would have an algo that stopped it all? "Click Here" is Adobes web site and this is because everybody put "To download PDF reader "Click Here"" as a link abd Google used that back link to give them billions of backlinks for that phrase. How stupid is that?
Anyway, my theory is that they are going after the link spam and this affects not only IBL's, OBL's but also internal links on your web site. That's why we are seeing a lot of site jumping out and in of the SERP's because they are still, after 2-3 weeks still finetuning their algo. I am thinking that whatever we experience with our web sites right now is going to be there for a long time, not a usual 2 month cycle.
| 2:16 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
...> if 10% or more of the googlebombs that I know about are appearing, then they haven't really fixed anything. They simply hand-edited the results.
It's axiomatic that algorithms can't handle 100% of problems like this without doing semantic analysis. It's equally axiomatic that nobody has figured out how to get computers to do semantic analysis yet.
That's like saying, "My e-mail provider only stops 90% of the spam e-mails (which, by the way, is probably close to true for all of us) Therefore, obviously, they have a person manually selecting which spam e-mails we will receive."
No, it's obvious that neither Google nor any e-mail provider have the staff to manually check these things. They are running automatic processes which do NOT do semantic analysis, but are keying off of numerical characteristics common to many (but not all) spam.
[edited by: lawman at 11:58 am (utc) on Jan. 29, 2007]
| 2:25 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
They could have set the bar high to avoid upsetting everything else that worked already. IF there's identical links from over 2,000 different sites AND keywords not present on page AND it's not in our top 5,000 searches THEN all links count 1/10,000th usual.....
This would leave many smaller pranks active but break-up large schemes.
Though, I've seen other changes in not-so-competitive areas. One of my favorite areas to watch isn't very competitive, and seldom changes much for almost any keyword combination. Big Google changes come and go, and nothing much shifts for years. They just did, which is fascinating. Top 5 sites typically shifted down 15-20 spots, though some disappeared. I doubt the sites changed, the algorithm more likey did. The ones moving down usually had worked to have matching keyword links pointing at them.
| 2:32 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|This is an extraordinarily misguided statement. |
Sigh. How many Googlebombs are there?
|The actual scale of this change is pretty small (there are under a hundred well-known Googlebombs) |
lol so if i can find 10% of 100, that's STATISTICALLY HUGE.
We're not talking hundreds of thousands of terms.
Which illustrates my point AGAIN.
They hand-edited (by using the algo) the hundred or so they KNEW about.
And perhaps placed a little algo tweak for .gov sites, Fortune 500 sites, etc
The argument has little to do with actual Googlebombing... it has to do with them "censoring" their results and claiming they have "fixed" googlebombing.
:yawn: Seriously, this is the "bought link" discussion all over again,
let me know when they actually fix something that matters.
Btw - my gmail filters at least 99% of "spam" so maybe their algo team should consult their gmail team....
| 3:12 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
No, this is just another "Sergei spends his lunch hour thinking of ways to scrape the jam off the bleeding lips of your starving orphaned children" thread. Which would seem to make HIM the obvious candidate for biggest pathetic loser in the free world.
| 3:53 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Glad to hear it is "finished". Perhaps the sudden disappearance of perfectly good sites for terms they have ranked on for years will finally diminish.
[edited by: HayMeadows at 3:54 am (utc) on Jan. 27, 2007]
| 7:46 pm on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If they actually HAVE instituted the new policy, "WHY are they announcing it to the outside world? |
Because the googlebomb phenomenon was hurting the google brand with the general public. Their biggest asset is that everyone uses google because when you search with google, you get the best results. Googlebombs were a high-profile example of a weakness in their algorithms. This undermines public confidence in google.
Therefore, from a public relations perspective, it makes sense to publicize it. Also from a PR perspective, it would be foolish to announce that they'd fixed it if they did a manual patch-up: that's a recipe for disaster down the track, because it would get found out eventually and their brand name would plummet. They know that. Therefore, they've almost certainly fixed it algorithmically.
| 7:59 pm on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It will be interesting to see how the new algo handles "real" googlebombs, aka, real unexpected major news events. To its credit, so far Google has done remarkably well in that regard, but I suspect such events look a lot like googlebombs to algos.
| 8:38 pm on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Don't you think one big difference is that the search term is not usually on a googlebombed target page, but it would be there for a fast building "buzz"?
| This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 81 ( 1  3 ) > > |