homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.145.183.190
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 81 ( 1 2 [3]     
Googlebombs Foiled by New Link Analysis
cangoou

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 8:05 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

From another thread:

Lets just take a look at the famous George Bush (and now Michael Moore) Google Bomb. If you dont know...do a search for Failure in Google and then view the cache to find out the Keyword Density for those pages is a big fat 0.

Well, the famous googlebomb seems not to work anymore. See also [googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com...]

[edited by: tedster at 8:19 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]

 

tedster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 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"?

Haecceity

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 3:35 am on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

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)

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the web is a democracy. It's not. Talk of "voting" on the web is just a metaphor.

Democracy is a political system for electing governments. It's not how the web works.

If 200 people "vote" to stand outside your house yelling at 3am you'd be perfectly at liberty to call the police and have them moved on. Oh no, sorry, that would be "suppressing free speech" wouldn't it?

As for what the algo is "supposed" to do -- it's interesting that you think you have some special insight into this that google somehow lacks. I thought it was their algo?

Like I said, too much salt ain't good for you, fellow.

Marc_P

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 3:00 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

I live in Quebec - our elected leader Jean Charest was the victim of a googlebomb for the french word "mouton frisť", this bomb no longer works.

marketingmagic

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 8:10 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

As I've stated in another G thread, these changes to the Algo have produced what I'd consider some undesirable results. .co.uk and .au sites are dominating the serps in the US. I don't know about you but when I live in the US and am searching for a product I don't find sites from other countries useful. (commercial and product searches, not information only queries.)

I'd think that G is still fine tuning this latest update - as I can't imagine them looking at the serps and saying, yeah that looks good.

Anyone from G around to comment on where things are at? Will we see further tweaks or is this it?

Adam_Lasnik

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 8:36 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

MarketingMagic,

Due to the nature (and very narrow targeting) of the anti-Googlebombing tweak, I am fairly certain that what you've brought up is unrelated.

With that said, though, we'd definitely welcome specific feedback (search results that don't look right, etc.); I know that sort of thing can't be mentioned here, so feel free to post that on our Webmaster Help forum, which we Googlers monitor regularly.

Thanks!

marketingmagic

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 9:59 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi Adam, thanks for the speedy response. I've posted at Googlegroups.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 12:14 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

marketingmagic
As I've stated in another G thread, these changes to the Algo have produced what I'd consider some undesirable results. .co.uk and .au sites are dominating the serps in the US. I don't know about you but when I live in the US and am searching for a product I don't find sites from other countries useful. (commercial and product searches, not information only queries.)

You might blame it on a recent Data Refresh. As Matt mentioned several times, those Data Refreshes happening now on daily basis and they might affect site rankings!

Hi Adam, thanks for the speedy response. I've posted at Googlegroups.

Would you like to share with us here what you posted on Googlegroups ;-)

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 12:26 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

Adam_Lasnik

With that said, though, we'd definitely welcome specific feedback (search results that don't look right, etc.); I know that sort of thing can't be mentioned here, so feel free to post that on our Webmaster Help forum, which we Googlers monitor regularly.

I recall GoogleGuy and/or Matt telling us to report such poor or irrelevant search results through the "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link. Have you changed recently that "recommendation" to reporting on your Webmaster Help forum instead?

Thanks.

Adam_Lasnik

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 1:13 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think either one is a fine choice.

One of the key benefits to the Forum choice, though, is that the posts are more likely to be seen by a broader group of Googlers and non-Googlers.

arnarn

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 6:00 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hmmm... sounds like everything is just peachy with G's results right now and what everybody's complaining about (er, observing) is nothing out of the ordinary.

whitenight

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 6:25 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the web is a democracy. It's not. Talk of "voting" on the web is just a metaphor.

Democracy is a political system for electing governments. It's not how the web works.

And you seem to not have read G's own description of how they rank sites. ie "the democratic nature of the web" - which are links.

Those sites were ranking there for over 2 years because THEIR algo ranks ALL sites "democratically."

The same way dell and apple rank #1 for computers.

Seriously, don't be silly.

If 200 people "vote" to stand outside your house yelling at 3am you'd be perfectly at liberty to call the police and have them moved on. Oh no, sorry, that would be "suppressing free speech" wouldn't it?

Again, wrong analogy. If 51% of your commmunity "vote" to have the ability to stand outside your house and yell, then you're SOL.
You can move to a new community or plead to a higher court under other protections afforded to you, but until it's overturned, get used to 200 ppl yelling outside your house.

As for what the algo is "supposed" to do -- it's interesting that you think you have some special insight into this that google somehow lacks. I thought it was their algo?

What a ludicrous argument. OBVIOUSLY, the algo was working like it was "supposed" to.

Computers don't think for themselves and numbers don't "have opinions and biases" so those sites ranked EXACTLY WHERE THEIR ALGO PLACED THEM.

Obviously G did NOT have a problem with them for 2-3 years before, as they knew full well those sites were ranking "correctly", placed a little disclaimer about why they were ranking there and left well enough alone.

And if i hear "it's their algo" or "it's their free speech" one more time....

If you don't understand that free speech, and especially free speech of a POLITICAL nature, is the foundation of a slew of other issues that affect every INDIVIDUAL person (not corporation), then don't bother with your arguments.
I simply don't have the time to debate political ethics any longer.

mjwalshe

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 10:42 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Again, wrong analogy. If 51% of your commmunity "vote" to have the ability to stand outside your house and yell, then you're SOL. "

<snip>

[edited by: lawman at 11:52 am (utc) on Jan. 29, 2007]
[edit reason] Language [/edit]

mattg3

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 11:14 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

So Google's democratic results are regularily featuring Hamaslike results then? :)

Haecceity

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 12:06 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

you seem to not have read G's own description of how they rank sites. ie "the democratic nature of the web" - which are links.

It's an *analogy*. The web is not literally a democracy, and Google are not infringing on rights of free speech by preventing Googlebombing, because such rights of free speech only exist in real, actual, political democracies.

As for what the algo is "supposed" to do -- it's interesting that you think you have some special insight into this that google somehow lacks. I thought it was their algo?

What a ludicrous argument. OBVIOUSLY, the algo was working like it was "supposed" to.

Computers don't think for themselves and numbers don't "have opinions and biases" so those sites ranked EXACTLY WHERE THEIR ALGO PLACED THEM.

What interesting thought processes you have. So presumably Windows computers are *meant* to freeze up because the software is just doing what its algorithms told the computer to do. If spam is at the top of the search results then obviously Google *meant* it to be there because it's their algorithm that allows this.

There's a difference between Google's intent and what their algorithm actually serves up. Their algorithm is simply an imperfect tool to enact their intent. If Google thinks the results could be better they're free to change how their algorithm works. That's their business.

This is so basic that I can't believe it's actually up for discussion.

And if i hear "it's their algo" or "it's their free speech" one more time....

Um, well it *is* their algo. I just had to say that to see what happens.

If you don't understand that free speech, and especially free speech of a POLITICAL nature, is the foundation of a slew of other issues that affect every INDIVIDUAL person (not corporation), then don't bother with your arguments.

Interesting, but kind of irrelevant in this particular case. People may try to use or alter Google's results for political purposes, but that does not make Google a democracy and does not give the individuals using Google any kind of right of free speech on Google.

I simply don't have the time to debate political ethics any longer.

Perhaps if there's enough outcry in this forum you'll reconsider? Consider it (metaphorically speaking) to be a kind of democracy in action.

photopassjapan

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 1:44 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

With all due respect to you Haecceity, it's not whitenight's argument you're going up against...

Whitenight is quoting the words of Google, off of Google's website, from press releases, blog posts, and their rethoric in general, which has kept them the image they aimed for... ever since they launched.

I mean i don't know all about this stuff but these are the words and idea(l)s that Google has built its public image on, and the same thing why they did not do anything to these... public voting cases for years either.

It was ( good for ) their image.
Underlined the way they operated their engine.
Why this stance has changed, why rhetorics still stay once it has, that's the argument here i think... or isn't it?

If you keep commenting the Google quotes from whitenight ( whose ideals i can only agree with ) you're up against yourself in attacking the face of Google while defending the logic of Google.

... or are all PR departments bending the facts knowing exactly well that people will forget where the image originates from?

The intenet is not a democracy.
Google said its search engine was modeling democracy.

The algo is or was supposed to gather the votes, and show the results. It did so perfectly well when these results were on top. And showed that Google was in fact using the methods it claimed to use. Yes, it was working as it was supposed to work. Now that claim does not go into detail whether the idea was good, or was good for long term. This wasn't a bug, this was THE intention! Get it? They LOVED that this happened!

But then again... spammers rigged the elections too, and thus link voting needed to become balanced, which it is for two years now. It's now the votes from the "senate" ;-) ... the authority sites. Why the queries in question still showed these results meant that even with this step, even with spam filtered out in great measures, this "opinion" is to stay. It did not do harm, whatsoever.

If it's not about democracy, just don't claim it's about democracy. That's all there is to be whining about right now :D . We never really believed in ( the web being a ) democracy in the first place. I don't think i have a right to speak and be heard freely, i don't think i have the right for anything. I believe i have to fight for my chance to speak, and i have to gain power to give weight to my opinion. Power of thought that is. That's how it goes, and no matter what people label as democratic, most of the time it's certainly not. If it is, then it's the masses who decide, and since masses have a tendency to be both dumb and easy to be manipulated, soon enough it's gonna be the experts, who the masses turn to. Authority, and trust, voted into power...

Blah.

The message here isn't political in my opinion.

It's just that the original image of Google had fit its algo very well THEN, but even though the system has changed, the rhethoric did not catch up. If they said "we're calculating these results based on votes from experts of this area and public opinion" ( i don't know if the "links from quality websites" kind of message means the same thing to most people ) there wouldn't be much to talk about this at all... except...

Since when should Google tell how it works?
Even if this is how they worked, which is i think by far a better solution ( public opinion balanced with expert opinion )... than leaving SERPs to be dominated by hype and spam.
They need to defend themselves against spam.
And us from hype. At least for generic searches :P

So... this is why this move...
is in fact backfiring!

For Google just gave away something that most spammers were not at all aware of. Meaning umpteen million "votes" won't change a thing if they are not from the proper sources, and also, the fact that you shouldn't use the same anchor text too much.

Up until now, only well informed webmasters knew this.

NOW, everyone knows.

...

Perhaps there was too much load on the system, and this is a measure to ask spammers to stop, for it won't work anyways.

Gomvents

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 2:37 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

Those famous bombs were manually pulled:

[209.85.165.104...]

is one example besides "click here" and other terms.

A site need not have text onsite to rank, although it does help.

There is no -950 penalty, that's a myth.

Stop listening to Matt Cutts and stop drinking the Kool-Aid folks!

Matt Cutts is NOT there to help you rank well on the SERPs.

He is there to try to prevent search engine spam and in the process properly SEO'ed sites will fall also if he can identify a paid link, a link that is anything other than given naturally (democracy of the web, blah blah blah) to your site. Your site will also have to be at least 3 years old to hold and weight with Google. Furthermore how long people link to you is important... Stop trying to get top rankings overnight... it's not practical!

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 10:32 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

Matt Cutts is NOT there to help you rank well on the SERPs.

To be fair... Matt, Adam and Vanessa have been very helpful in explaining issues which might affect sites rankings.

Take a look on this recent post [mattcutts.com] in addition to that one [mattcutts.com] of Matt and judge for yourself ;-)

BigDave

WebmasterWorld Senior Member bigdave us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 11:17 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

Uh, Where does google claim that their SERPs are a democracy?

First off, whitenight likes to quote sentence fragments, rather than giving you the full idea of what Google says.

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value

The first thing to notice is that this is about PageRank, not your position in the SERPs.

The second thing to notice is that Google says "relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web". They do not say that PageRank or Google's SERPs are democratic. For that matter, they do not even say the web is democratic, they just say the web has a democratic nature.

He also fails to mention what it says in the very next paragraph, which seems to go against his argument:
Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search.

Oops. It seems that Google isn't claiming to be a democracy, but a site that cares about returning meaningful results. They just use the "democratic nature of the web" to help guide them in returning revelant results.

Oh, and Gumvents, if you actually paid attention to MC's advice, there is a good chance that you will rank for importan phrases in much less than 3 years. But you have to be willing to listen and comprehend.

marketingmagic

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 11:39 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

reseller:

I posted the issue of .co.uk and .au sites crowding the serps for certain terms. Not sure if this is really useful to users in the US for these searches as shipping makes dealing with anyone in the UK or Austrailia impossible. (Commercial searches)

Cheers,

MM

whitenight

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 2:06 am on Jan 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

The first thing to notice is that this is about PageRank, not your position in the SERPs.

Ok, this is getting silly. We both know (or maybe you don't) perfectly well how the algo "ranks" sites.

Again, those sites were ranking there because ALOT of people understand how to get a site to rank for any particular term.

Because many here do NOT know how to get sites to rank, I'm not going to discuss specifics here.

But anyone who DOES understand how sites ranks, knows perfectly well how "democratic" it is
and why I specifically said Michell Moore's sites was a "poor choice"
(and it wasn't because of the PERSONALITY of Michael Moore, per se)
if they wanted their "bomb" to rank higher.

It would also do well to note the word "democratic" is in quotes in all my posts.
Again, spare me the politics lessons. I think with my 3 degrees in various political disciplines, I understand what a democracy is.

Oops. It seems that Google isn't claiming to be a democracy, but a site that cares about returning meaningful results.
They just use the "democratic nature of the web" to help guide them in returning revelant results.

Again, you and others are putting the cart before the horse.

If we were to take a poll of what percentage of people were typing in "miserable failure" (or other well-known bombs) EXPECTING to find whitehouse.gov and michealmoore.com, it would easily be 99%.

I don't know how much more relevant those two sites can be for that term... since the only people typing in "miserable failure" are looking to find those sites and where they rank.

(Please, please, please, make some lame argument about how there were ANY people searching for "miserable failure" before this incident)

You might have an argument if it was reversed and a page that had a picture of George Bush in a donkey suit came up #1 for "white house" ahead of whitehouse.gov (or a page of Micheal Moore in a donkey suit came up #1 for "michael moore" ahead of michaelmoore.com)

But that's not the case here.

whitenight

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3232535 posted 2:50 am on Jan 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

You know, I'm half tempted to create
miserablefailure.com,
get it to rank "naturally"
and then place the biographies of the G8 world leaders on it.
Let google censor me and then sue.

Then we can have this discussion again. :)

This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 81 ( 1 2 [3]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved