homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.224.121
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

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




msg:3232526
 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




msg:3232539
 8:22 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

By improving our analysis of the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs... Algorithms are great because they scale well: computers can process lots of data very fast, and robust algorithms often work well in many different languages. That's what we did in this case, and the extra effort to find a good algorithm helps detect Googlebombs in many different languages.

Hmmm.... does this mean we've actually had an algorithm update?

NedProf




msg:3232541
 8:26 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Two very famous Bombs in Holland don't work anymore. So it looks like the algorithm works.

adfree




msg:3232545
 8:30 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Now it would be interesting when and if any side effects get reported. As with any medication, there will be some, question being how significant they'll be.

sem4u




msg:3232553
 8:42 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

That is a big change. All of the famous Googlebombs are gone and even one I learnt about just the other day.

martinibuster




msg:3232557
 8:53 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe unrelated, but a search for acrobat returns a curious response. I see an adobe subdomain saying the service is unavailable, in the third spot. I don't recall if that was there recently. I'm positive it wasn't there last year. Anyone know?

Googlebombs very rarely happen for common queries, because the lack of any relevant results for that phrase is part of why a Googlebomb can work...

Interesting.

[edited by: martinibuster at 8:56 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]

vincevincevince




msg:3232558
 8:56 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wonder if they have really fixed the algorithm - or if they have just manually adjusted all these results as a face-saving measure?

Adam_Lasnik




msg:3232576
 9:20 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

As noted in the blogpost, it was done algorithmically. We really prefer to tackle things scalably like that... just makes more sense long-term.

NedProf




msg:3232581
 9:31 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think it's a good thing to eliminate this Google Bombs. The algorithm can't be too difficult:

if (linktext!= in_website()) { dontrank() }

Leosghost




msg:3232585
 9:37 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I was going to ask :)"You are sure it wasnt just to stop Matt ranking for bacon polenta? " ..and then I checked ..and he still does ..:)

'corse you do know that you just threw down a fresh gauntlet to every black hat seo to try to make one stick again Adam ..

or was that the idea ..hopefully keep everyone too busy to have the time to spam the index? :)

sem4u




msg:3232589
 9:41 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Pages can still rank #1 on anchor text alone. Try 'click here'.

Bones




msg:3232603
 9:58 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Interesting.

Is this something that the Black Hats will be using to try and Googlebomb a competitors legitimately ranked site out of the SERPS?

Crush




msg:3232615
 10:03 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Anchor text does not work anymore. Riggghhhhtt ;)

Evroccck




msg:3232623
 10:18 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

thats bogus, one of my googlebombs still works....as does Click here....

sem4u




msg:3232624
 10:19 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

It must be to do with a page getting too many links, too quickly, with exactly the same anchor text, and not having that text on the targeted webpage.

If this is true then it is important to follow the advice given by some people on this forum, such as not obtaining too many links too fast and varying the anchor text of these links.

whitenight




msg:3232643
 10:49 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wow,

I'm surprised they actually spent the time to post this.
and then come on here to comment on it.

Again, I ask you Google, "Who exactly are you trying to 'scare'"?

It took experienced SEOs less than 2 minutes to discount your claims.

Now perhaps people will listen when I say take EVERYTHING GG, Adam, or MC says with a grain of salt.

Nice of you to leave the "articles" about how effective Google Bombing is tho. ;)

[edited by: whitenight at 11:08 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]

SteveJohnston




msg:3232644
 10:50 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is a positive move.

Sem4u's point about part of the consideration being the lack of the anchor text appearing on the target page, makes total sense, however it probably also kicks in when the anchor text isn't found on the source page either (other than in the link, obviously).

This change will therefore impact not just Googlebombs but all those link buying schemes where the anchor has nothing to do with anything else on either page. A relatively straighforward calculation, you'd think.

However, there will be some innocent victims too - when wasn't that the case with an algorithm change!

I have noticed this morning one big client's home page drop a few places for a phrase that involved the word 'cheap', which historically has not been present on their home page, nor much across their whole site due to brand sensitivities, but performed due to the volume of links that included the word. The most likely cause of this drop, on what was otherwise a pretty stable result, is therefore this Googlebomb change.

Interesting times.

Steve

Leosghost




msg:3232650
 11:04 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

been looking around ..and discovered what might be a side effect of this attempt ..technorati appears to be popping onto page one of many french serps ( what I like about technorati is it tell you how many blogs link to the term ..so you know more or less how much blog spamming you have to do to get a particular place ) where it's never been higher than page 10 before ..

funny thing is the serps in question never had any bombs in them ..would this mean that instead of google bombs we can now build tecnorati cluster***** ( military term ..which I cant use here :) that might not be too clever a thing to let happen to the serps in these re-adjusted political times ;-)

added
'specially if the same thing is happening stateside ..

[edited by: Leosghost at 11:06 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]

Haecceity




msg:3232696
 11:58 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing technorati results in all the old googlebomb results but I don't know if this is new. I don't often search for "liar" on google.

The "click here" thing is interesting. I'd suggest whiteknight is jumping to conclusions and I don't think we could say yet that google's claims have been "discounted." Google could simply have done what NedProf suggested and not ranked a page is the anchor text wasn't on the page, but presumably that's not the approach they took.

whitenight




msg:3232709
 12:09 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Like all Google "announcements", you have to ask yourself, If they actually HAVE instituted the new policy, "WHY are they announcing it to the outside world?"

Does that make sense from a "we don't want blackhats or spammers to reverse-engineer our algo" point of view?

Ok, so assuming they have instituted this algo change, why not just put it in the algo quiet-like and let it's effects work with their desired purpose.

It's easy to replace "well-known" google bombs, but less publicized ones are still showing up, so what does that mean to me?

Take my opinions with a grain of salt, just make sure you take G employees 1-3's with 2 pinches of salt. :)

Haecceity




msg:3232721
 12:22 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Like all Google "announcements", you have to ask yourself, If they actually HAVE instituted the new policy, "WHY are they announcing it to the outside world?"

Just a suggestion, but since googlebombs are news then a change that affects googlebombing is also news.

Another suggestion: Google likes getting in the news.

Does that make sense from a "we don't want blackhats or spammers to reverse-engineer our algo" point of view?

I presume they have confidence that they're not publishing anything that's going to be terribly useful to blackhats or spammers.

Ok, so assuming they have instituted this algo change, why not just put it in the algo quiet-like and let it's effects work with their desired purpose.

Why would they announce they'd made a change to the algorithm if they hadn't?

It's easy to replace "well-known" google bombs, but less publicized ones are still showing up, so what does that mean to me?

That's an interesting question and one that deserves to be looked into, but as with most questions of that nature it's best not to jump to conlusions.

Take my opinions with a grain of salt, just make sure you take G employee 1-3's with 2 pinches of salt. :)

You like your salt, eh? :)

While some salt is useful too much is bad for you :)

whitenight




msg:3232725
 12:32 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Let me sum up all your questions by asking, when does Google ever address SPECIFIC instances of algo changes? General, yes. Specific, only when it's used to "deter" certain behaviors.(and i've yet to see any specifically-mentioned algo change applied on the "scaled" level they claim)

I'm still waiting for their clear definition for "boilerplate repetition".

--------
Now, on a more philosophical level...
Technically, a "Googlebomb" (sometimes called a "linkbomb" since they're not specific to Google) refers to a prank where people attempt to cause someone else's site to rank for an obscure or meaningless query.

My goodness, the most well-known googlebomb isn't a "prank" at all but a clear indication of the recent political climate in the US. With Whitehouse and Michael Moore ranking.

Why is G "filtering" anything at all?!
(Shall I add this to Google's China Policy for "evil-ness")

Because non-SEOs don't realize that G can be manipulated?
Yea, that does reflect poorly on the company
HOWEVER, the well-known "pranks" aren't pranks at all and in the above case is equivalent to political censorship.

(And once again, I found yet another "bomb" that hasn't been effected...)

AndyA




msg:3232735
 12:57 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wonder if this explains all the authority sites that have pages ranked at #950 (the Google 950 Penalty).

An algorhythm update to put an end to Googlebombing, but Google bombs in another area by sticking niche authority sites at the bottom of the results...

[edited by: AndyA at 1:31 pm (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]

southernmost




msg:3232774
 1:40 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

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.
Still, Google has not commented on the 950 situation, and it is a shame. Many very good, legitimate sites have lost most of their Google traffic with no guidance from Google.

chewy




msg:3232852
 3:07 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Did any businesses loose money as a result of Googlebombing? (Surely, some folks lost some face, but this was sort of happening already). Why don't they put a stop to free speech while they are at it?

how do we, as small business people, put the heat on Google to do things in OUR best interests?

i know the big G has the best food, swimming pools, pool tables and not like we need to be reminded, plenty of money, etc etc but hey, while we love Matt etc, where is the REAL ombudsman?

Where is the much needed process for mediating claims, resolving difficulties, dealing with things that don't scale well?

Can't they spend a bit more in that department?

Back in the day, we had powerful users groups that had things like Customer Advisory Boards which worked to truly improve product features and benefits.

/end rant

willybfriendly




msg:3233013
 4:55 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I am sure that the wizards at G have coem up with an amazing algo this time.

I still get interesting responses when searching for French Military Victories though ;)

WBF

AndAgain




msg:3233140
 6:18 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Gangoou...Thanks for quote!

However, even though this is very impressive and very odd saying its been there for years and only a few days after me mentioning it's gone...I doubt the mention had anything to do with it but still interesting to say the least.

But....no one mentioned that the Michael Moore bomb still sits..it dropped a little but it is still there which means..well really a whole lot of things.

AndAgain

AndAgain




msg:3233150
 6:22 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Oh and furthermore...my point of bringing this up a few days ago was only to point out that keyword density means close to nothing.

Link text still and will always play a huge role in any algo.

incrediBILL




msg:3233228
 7:28 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

They must look for a bunch of links with the same anchor text to define it as a Google Bomb as I have a single link that associates a major brand of microwave food that burned my mouth with a volcanic phrase and it still shows up as the #2 result for that search.

Maybe since mine was only a couple of links it was only a Google Firecracker, and not a full fledged Google Bomb, so it slipped thru the cracks ;)

martinibuster




msg:3233244
 7:37 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

try and Googlebomb a competitors legitimately ranked site out of the SERPS?

The answer is likely no. In the blog post, it appears they are identifying non-competitive phrases. That's why I quoted this part in my previous post:

Googlebombs very rarely happen for common queries, because the lack of any relevant results for that phrase is part of why a Googlebomb can work...

So part or all of what they did was to look at tightening that up.

It must be to do with a page getting too many links, too quickly, with exactly the same anchor text, and not having that text on the targeted webpage.

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.

An open question is whether it will have an effect on competitive phrases.

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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved