| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: 70 (  2 3 ) > > || |
|Today's Webmaster & Their Relationship with Google - Part 2|
Understanding Where We Are & Where We are Going
|The Shower Scene|
| 7:55 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
< continued from: [webmasterworld.com...] >
< To help focus the discussion, here's a reprint of the opening post >
I'm convinced that today's webmaster is under the Google mindshare spell. Most don't even realize it.
- Google's Guidelines do not define Ethical SEO
Many webmasters equate Google's guidelines with "ethical seo." Google's guidelines represent rules that are convenient for Google. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Internet ethics define how you interact with other webmasters and websites, whether you choose to link to a partner with a real link or not, sabotage, and other questions of right and wrong that sometimes are so subjective they can have a thousand right answers. Google's Guidelines are not part of the ethical equation. It's time webmasters corrected their lazy habit of referring to ethics and Google's Guidelines as if they were one and the same.
- Google has gone beyond user mindshare
In many ways Google has acquired webmaster mindshare. How else to explain a post by a member who details his aggressive site promotion efforts then asks if it's ethical? Google literally has webmasters brainwashed into thinking that their guidelines defines ethics. When a webmaster as a matter of course refers to violating Google's guidelines as pertaining to ethics, what else can you do but call it what it is: a brainwash.
- The Google Webmaster Spell
Today's webmasters have become so under the Google spell that all their energy is focused on Google. The mindshare takeover is so complete they even think the Google Directory is an entity in itself.
|I have my one site listed in google directory and the link information is wrong there. Could anyone tell me how we can contact the editors and change my link information for my website link in google directory.... |
- Google Defines Webmaster Dialogue and Thinking
Today's webmaster so intellectually lazy they actually believe that the best information is going to come from a heavily moderated Google Groups forum. Today's webmaster confuses helpful information with what is essentially Kool-Aid that is being posted on Matt Cutts blog.
Do you actually believe the dialogue on a Google Group or a Matt Cutts blog is moderated for anything other than to make webmasters conform to Google's corporate will? On WebmasterWorld, and other forums like DP, SEW, TW, and many others, we are free to discuss every aspect of search marketing. On Matt Cutts blog and the official Google forums you are not. Google controls the dialogue and the outcomes of the discussions. Google and Matt Cutts are not concerned with helping you rank better. They are concerned about the integrity of their algorithm, and making webmasters unpaid partners in protecting Google's algorithm through snitch networks and data mining enterprises like Webmaster Central.
- Thank you for smoking, have some more kool aid.
Todays webmaster is so compliant, complacent, and utterly sheep-like they are willingly surrendering highly personal data to Google without understanding how it ultimately benefits Google far more than it benefits them. The toolbar was pretty invasive, but webmaster central is a shameless data grab. Old ladies resist when someone snatches their purse. Todays webmaster lacks the will to resist and the intellect to understand what Google is doing to them. Do you understand the irony of a search for "Webmaster Central [google.com]" leading to several web pages that benefits Google instead of websites that benefit webmasters?
- Google is taking over and moderating the webmaster discussion
Google endeavours to control the discussion of Google by limiting it to their own network of blogs and discussion forums. How else to explain the absence of AdSense advisor, GoogleGuy, Adam Lasnik, and AdWords Advisor? ASA didn't even bother to announce the last AdSense weekend update. GoogleGuy is absent on Webmaster Forums except to defend Google at TW or promoting their snitch programs.
When was the last time GoogleGuy or the other representatives did something on the webmaster forums to help or answer questions? Where have they gone? I will tell you where they are. They are hijacking our dialogue and moderating it on the official Matt Cutts blog and their other Kool-Aid forums. I believe it's a conscious effort to control what you think and gain webmaster mindshare for the benefit of Google.
Google is the Internet
Am I the only one who feels it's extraordinary how Google is becoming the arbiter of web ethics, coding practices, and the webmaster dialogue? Do webmasters really want an Internet that is defined and dicated according to what is good for Google?
[edited by: tedster at 4:45 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]
| 2:10 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The biggest problem for the webmasters community are clueless, newbie, and/or lazy webmasters (as it was stated somewhere here before). They think Google wants them (not Google) to make money and it's easy to do. They also think Google is a non-profit organization.
For all newbie webmasters here, the Google privacy is what you should read twice a day. It's also advisable to change the word "may use/may share" to "WILL USE/WILL SHARE" there. [google.com ]
Whatever you, as the webmaster, share with Google today, will be used against you and your site tomorrow in a direct or indirect way.
[edited by: tedster at 4:50 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]
| 2:15 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If only that were true. Google is far more than "just a search engine". It is fast becoming THE interface to the Internet. |
Really? Tell that to the millions of people who spend their time searching for widgets at eBay, socializing at MySpace, downloading music from iTunes, shopping at Amazon, looking up hotel reviews at TripAdvisor, or reading the online editions of national and local newspapers. A study by three researchers at UCLA suggests that about 13.6% of all Web traffic is under the "direct or indirect influence of search engines." Even if you assume that Google Search has a 65% market share, that means Google Search has a "direct or indirect influence" on less than 9% of total Web traffic.
Again: Google isn't God, and Google isn't omnipotent. Even with YouTube, Google Earth, and other Google properties or products thrown into the pot, Google is far less than "THE interface" to the Web--let alone to the Internet.
|Whatever you, as the webmaster, share with Google today, will be used against you and your site tomorrow in a direct or indirect way. |
Why do you assume that Google will use that "whatever" against you? Are you suggesting that Google has a grudge against everyone with a Web site?
| 2:19 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"and who encouraged this? oh yes it was Google"
On what planet was that?
On Earth, people always liked making money, and many people always were greedy, and many people have always tried to steal what they don't deserve.
The ills of the world are more Nixon's fault than Google's, but people don't cry about him obsessively.
| 2:22 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Why do you assume that Google will use that "whatever" against you? Are you suggesting that Google has a grudge against everyone with a Web site? |
I don't mean Google will necessarily violate my privacy nor penalize my site in rankings. I mean - Google will use the information submitted/shared by thousands of clueless webmasters to make bigger profits for themselves instead of the webmasters. Google's ROI will always increase, the webmasters will decrease.
| 2:36 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I don't mean Google will necessarily violate my privacy nor penalize my site in rankings. I mean - Google will use the information submitted/shared by thousands of clueless webmasters to make bigger profits for themselves instead of the webmasters. Google's ROI will always increase, the webmasters will decrease. |
ROI on what? You appear to be comparing apples and oranges. What Google and most Webmasters invest in are entirely different things. (I don't hire search engineers or buy up "dark fiber," and Google doesn't tour bakeries in Paris or ride vaporetti on Venetian canals.)
| 2:39 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The ills of the world are more Nixon's fault than Google's, but people don't cry about him obsessively. |
whinetht I needetht to improve
We winetht Google needetht to improve..
If nobody winetht anymore and it's silent the conspiracy story that Google is the Antichrist and I was the last martyr is true...
On the serious side:
When conspiracy theories grow, there is distrust and information vaccum. Since we don't have the information and Google can't give us more than the absolute basic I think, even if well intended the webmaster Google info can only be futile.
I think Google needs to understand the happy socialist world changing days are over. You are big and powerful and there will be always a large percentage that will distrust big organisation that have a non disclosure policy.
Welcome to the establishment..
[edited by: mattg3 at 2:46 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]
| 2:40 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
ROI on Adwords, Adsense, and any other possible advertising media Google is now and will be in the future.
| 3:02 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Let's assume I have a small, local advertising company. My products are good so I have orders from many countries and places. But I always have a dilemma how much to charge for my products because they are custom-made.
Today my secretary tells me:
We have two prospective clients who sent us their business proposal letters. They both included their name and address. As always, I did a quick search and concluded:
1. The First client must be rich because he lives in the center of NYC. His name is also familiar (I think he must be an actor or something).
2. The Second client lives in Albania. He doesn't speak English well and sent a hand-written letter.
Now I think. Based on the information on the first client, let's charge him $1000 because he can surely afford it. Based on the information on the second client, let's try $100. I won't surely try to charge the second client $1000 because I know he cannot afford it. But I will do my best to calculate how much MAXIMUM he would be able to pay (Google Analytics + Google Adwords + Google Checkout). The product they are going to order are exactly the same.
Here - I only had two basic pieces of information (the location of my prospective clients). Now when you think how much more information on your business Google has or may have, don't you think they will not use this information to maximize their profits?
If you think about it more deeply, you should understand.
| 3:50 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Really? Tell that to the millions of people who spend their time searching for widgets at eBay, socializing at MySpace, downloading music from iTunes, shopping at Amazon, looking up hotel reviews at TripAdvisor, or reading the online editions of national and local newspapers. |
And using Google groups, google maps, G-mail, Google Apps, clicking on Google ads here there and everywhere (including those local newspaper listings you refer to), Blogger, etc., etc....
Or the significant minority of Firefox users who see Google as the default in the search bar or the startup page...
Or those that use Google as a verb, as in, "to Google it..."
Or get a daily dose of YouTube...
Many of whom may not even be immediately aware they are using Google. Just read a post in a Y-Group today from a farmer bragging about the G-maps satellite picture of their pasture - including animals grazing - all provided by their livestock breed association's website.
Google's Internet presence is far reaching, and insinuates itself into far more than the SERPS. But, surely you already know this.
Sure, Google is neither a god or a devil. It is a monolith. To somehow assert that Google has not changed the face of the web borders on the ludicrous. To assert that the majority of webmasters can cavalierly dismiss Google's presence and influence is ridiculous.
Which of course brings us back to the relationship between webmasters and Google, which is the real subject of this thread. For many that have any time under their belt that relationship has shifted in significant ways. Newbies may see Google as a panacea, but many more experienced folks are viewing Google with suspicion bordering on distrust.
| 5:09 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|but many more experienced folks are viewing Google with suspicion bordering on distrust. |
Hate to let the air out of that balloon, but how many is many? A dozen or so senior members of this board? How about this instead: "but SOME more experienced..."
| 5:36 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|For many that have any time under their belt that relationship has shifted in significant ways. Newbies may see Google as a panacea, but many more experienced folks are viewing Google with suspicion bordering on distrust. |
I've been in the online industry since 1995, and I was writing a magazine column about the Web before Google launched. I don't view Google Search with "suspicion bordering on distrust," but I can see how people who earn their livings with SEO, thin affiliate sites, PFI directories, etc. might feel that way. As I said earlier in this thread, there's no "Webmaster community"--there are any number of Webmaster communities. Site owners whose content meshes nicely with Google's mission statement ("to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful") obviously have less reason to feel "suspicion bordering on distrust" than those whose goals and agendas are less compatible.
The OP wrote:
|Do webmasters really want an Internet that is defined and dicated according to what is good for Google? |
My question is:
"If you think the OP's thesis is correct, what do you plan to do about it?"
| 5:36 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ya know .. I'm getting tired of this. The original post was outstanding I thought .. but, I have no relationship with Google. They may claim a relationship with me because I use some of their FREE tools. They list my websites and don't mess with me, if I play within the rules. They give me a few good pointers if I have an advertising campaign that seems profitable. They give me space to make a few bucks on the side. Will it last? I don't know. Do I trust them inherently? I don't trust anyone with the power that Google has.
Diversify! And never ever search for those goodies that you really want to know about, while you're logged in to Google - or any other engine.
| 6:45 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Newbies may see Google as a panacea, but many more experienced folks are viewing Google with suspicion bordering on distrust."
Hardly. Sure as we can see some take the rube attitude of "oh gee them big city boys are exploiting me", but sensible webmasters trust that Google will try to act in its best longterm interest. This is also what webmasters should do. Whining that some other company is going to (gasp) USE the information at its fingertips is irrational.
Google is powerful. So is the Pope. Whining about either is not productive. You have to live your own life. Google is a business entity that helps me make money, and I help them make money in return (though to a far more trivial degree). One good thing about Google, is while they are often inept, they do generally try and act in ways designed to be profitable, which contrasts from all the little-guys-who-can't-think-big tin hat theories that have no vision and think Google is out to destroy its core business for a cup of coffee and a doughnut.
Google is my ally in bringing my material to the world. A blind drunken ally sometimes to be sure, but overall a straightforward, motivations-obvious, useful ally. I have other allies too. Interestingly I don't cry that any of them aren't thinking about me first and coming over to wash my car on their weekends.
| 6:46 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|but I can see how people who earn their livings with SEO, thin affiliate sites, PFI directories, etc. might feel that way. ..... |
Site owners whose content meshes nicely with Google's mission statement ("to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful") obviously have less reason to feel "suspicion bordering on distrust" than those whose goals and agendas are less compatible.
You're making quite a lot of assumptions here, aren't you?
I'll just state a blanket BS to the conclusions you come to about why people distrust G.
And leave it at that, as there's no need to expound upon such nonsense.
As I predicted after MC's text link post, whatever goodwill G had with the webmaster community was immediately put into a new light and many webmasters who previously defended G to ridiculous lengths finally woke up and saw that G was not their friend, buddy, or business partner.
Honestly, it's quite refreshing to see webmasters (as a whole) taking the baby steps to getting back their internet which they so willingly handed over to G out of naivete.
You ask, in a challenging tone "If you think the OP's thesis is correct, what do you plan to do about it?"
lol, rest assured, the history of the world continually shows what happens when even a small group of people rally to topple a power structure, perceived or not.
(Bolsheviks, the American colonies, Ghandi, and Martin Luther were considered "whiners" too at the time)
And as much as the webmasters here have been maligned as the "minority" of the total "webmaster community", they are also the top 1-5% of the movers and shakers.
You know... the ones with important blogs and websites that millions of people read for advice and trend setting?
The ones who write newsletters that the other 90% read as truth.
The ones who SEO for the Fortune 1000 companies.
The ones who spend the most on adwords.
The ones who get the biggest adsense checks....
The one who indeed put together content that "meshes nicely with Google" and the www as a whole.
So let's get real about who controls who.
As soon as even a few webmasters realize they are indeed the ones in control and stop believing the nonsense marketed by Google (and certain posters here) that G is too big and powerful for us "little webmasters" to fight against, things will start changing fast.
Google ultimately knows this, as all great powers do. It's the masses that set the rules and determine who's in power, no matter how much propaganda the current power holder(and those who also benefit from their power) claim otherwise.
| 7:22 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
1. As a webmaster, the relationship between Google and me is based upon ignorance (on Google's part) and dis-trust (on both parts).
Some key examples:
- The crap Adsense contract that allows each party to cancel the contract at any time for any reason or even no reason at all.
- The unwillingness or unability of Google to improve their communication style with their partners. Just look at the crappy optimization tips for Adsense publishers. Or send a mail to their support team. Then see the incompetence in their replies pile up in your inbox.
- The unwillingness to adjust to even the most basic Adsense publishers feature requests (bigger filter list!) to help publishers controlling the amount of crap that is rushing in through Adwords.
- The clear unwillingness to admit that an MFA problem exists that does hurt real users, and that they are unwilling to clean up the Adwords/Adsense system by themselves.
- The unwillingness to share ANY relevant data with their partners (e.g. Adsense publishers) to help the partner to improve revenues.
- The recent bizarre requirements (by Google) on how to code links, with only foggy explanations given, if at all.
- Their unwillingness to take ANY responsability at all for the mess they are creating. Be it service level agreements, privacy concerns, or copyright infringements. Whatever comes from them is always vague, foggy, intransparent.
All that tells me something about the relationship that I (as webmaster) have with Google.
2. As a user, the relationship between Google and me was based upon a lock in my mind (that I removed only recently). I would enter www.google.com for any of my web searches. Google used to be a good find engine (they found good stuff that I was unable to find before), but their data collection efforts go FAR TOO FAR for me. As they will nowhere show me how my data is being used (be it for me or against me), I am sceptic. I now use alternatives. I simply do not trust them, because they have more than once proven that their "do no evil" statement is pure B.S.
3. As an IP rights holder, I am deeply worried by Google's grip on every bit of content that they can get hold of. Videos? Open Youtube. Books? Open Google Books. Entire web sites? Open Google Cache. They just try to turn every bit of content (esp. content that is not OWNED by them!) into an advertising platform. Which is only too logical. To keep their investor story running, they need to grab more and more content. And they simply do not care about copyright. The whole Youtube discussion is the perfect example, but with Google Images and Google Cache it is no different.
To summarize, my relationship with Google is broken. BTW, it's not that my SE rankings are bad (they're OK) - it's the way Google as a company appears to me, the way they interact with me.
| 8:02 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
reading all this it occurs to me that the same thing is happening to google that happened to microsoft years ago.
a company once the champion of a new technology now becoming despised for it's monopoly position.
expect google 2020 edition to be a stunning leap forward in rehashing the same old product.
| 8:43 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"As soon as even a few webmasters realize they are indeed the ones in control and stop believing the nonsense marketed by Google (and certain posters here) that G is too big and powerful for us "little webmasters" to fight against, things will start changing fast."
THATS WHAT I WANTED TO GET THROUGH BRAINS ON THIS BOARD VIA THIS THREAD -
| 8:45 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"it's quite refreshing to see webmasters (as a whole) taking the baby steps to getting back their internet"
Wow, the silly season is truly in full force. Better sell all the Google stock and buy Kleenex.
In the real world, people have been impotently bitching about Google for more than half a decade. It's always the same, nothing new, and certainly nothing that has ever made a lick of sense to anyone with a thimblefull of self-esteem.
The world, including the online world, is littered with people who see an enemy in everyone else. Learn to coexist with other people with free will. Google is no more my adversary then the guy driving in the next lane of the freeway.
| 8:46 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"If Google's influence can help to starve out the cattle rustlers, bank robbers, and bounty hunters"
"So its Google's job to "police the net"? "
"He never said that; Good companies can have a good influence without policing anything. And isn't it the job of all honest citizens - not just the police - to stand against "cattle rustlers, bank robbers, and bounty hunters"? "
Of course but this is the internet and I certainly only have very limited powers to police anything - Google has great power ( which is the whole point of the OP ) and can therefore create a view of the internet as it seems fit - even if the wrong people (sites ) get arrested ( dropped from SERPS )
"Seems a shame to leave Google to do the dirty work, then criticize them for wanting to be the police.
You can't call for self regulation, freedom etc., etc., when too many "honest citizens" can't be bothered to stand up for high standards - and then attack one organisation that does. "
I'm afraid I can't comment on other "citizens" I can only give my viewpoint that reflects my ethics.
Google is a corporation not an organisation - corporations exist to make profits - the standards of a corporation can change and their standard may not be everyone else's. Google is not some sort of charitable organisation.
"Why do I get the feeling that whatever Google does is going to be wrong, even helping an old lady cross the road? "
Not at all - Google was a great corporation - with novel ideas that gave it market share - but over the last 2 years I have detected a major shift - it has changed as its power base ( and profits ) has increased.
Google will not have the market for itself for ever - if leveraging search creates that much profit some one somewhere will have a serious attempt at that market.
| 8:54 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"THATS WHAT I WANTED TO GET THROUGH..."
A few years ago the hustlers were still thinking they had a shot. These days the Internet is more controlled by serious business people without the slightest interest in gaming the system or doing battle with a search engine. These days people (call them the white hats if you want) with real content are looking to be judged properly by search engines. That's where the money is. The folks wanting to do battle with search engines are living in the distant past. Time to get over it. The web is more mature now. Google (or whoever replaces them as engine of choice) will always be powerful, and always have a prime goal to give exposure to real content sites and devalue the desperate hustlers whose sites they know their customers have no interest in seeing.
I'm not the slightest threatened by Google. I just wish they did a better job with their business. Some folks have the opposite view. They look at Google as the enemy because they want to trick anybody and everybody.
The break isn't between Google and webmasters. the break is between legitimate businesses and the hustlers who should have been building businesses instead of spamming guestbooks all those years ago.
| 9:02 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Google is no more my adversary then the guy driving in the next lane of the freeway. |
Indeed. Or partner, or teacher, or ethical mentor.
Google is a factor that I take into consideration in daily life. With, currently, markedly less longevity than the law of gravity or the IRS.
| 9:07 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Thats what make me rethink whats the CHANGED definition of SEO (read as white hat or whatever)?
Ofcourse every ethical business needs to follow the guidelines and "be in the system to beat the system".
| 9:13 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|As soon as even a few webmasters realize they are indeed the ones in control and stop believing the nonsense marketed by Google (and certain posters here) that G is too big and powerful for us "little webmasters" to fight against, things will start changing fast. |
Well said, whitenight, well said.
Let's have a look at Google's weaknesses:
- Competition is just one click away. There is absolutely no technical lock-in Google has other than their toolbar and the Firefox browsers. (I assume that very few users will switch their search service when the search service is embedded into the browser.)
- Their organization is centered around algo's rather than people. This can quickly turn against you, because noone actually has a relationship with Google (which is the whole point of this thread). If you do not have a relationship, you can easily turn against the other party.
- They are making huge profits, which makes people envious (webmasters, IP rights owners) or suspicious (average users). Each earningsreport with "even better figures" will increase this feeling. At some point, the change in perception may indeed come very quick.
- They think they are not vulnerable - and this is probably their biggest weakness. They acquire a video hosting company despite knowing that massive copyright infringement has taken place. They scan full libraries, regardless whether copyright protected works are part of the collection or not. Hubris, or what?
| 9:38 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|In the real world, people have been impotently bitching about Google for more than half a decade. It's always the same, nothing new, and certainly nothing that has ever made a lick of sense to anyone with a thimblefull of self-esteem. |
First take a deep breathe, steveb. :)
Here, in the real world, the really real world, 5 years isn't even an eye-blink of time.
I find it funny when people compare Google's time of dominance as if they are the Bank of London existing for centuries, as opposed to the age of a small child.
And if you wanna use "internet time" as the definition of the "real world", then you'd do well to note a shift in a companies position, marketshare, popularity, etc can virtually change overnight
(that converts to approx. 6 months "real-world" time)
I love the revisionist history of "internet time"
30% of my referrers now use a firefox-variant across all my websites.
How long has firefox existed? 2 years?
If something happens in "internet time" that takes 30% of market share away from Goog, do you think that would change the dynamics of this discussion, of their business practices?
(You mentioned the Pope... How long did it take Protestantism to become the dominant religion in England after 1300 years of "whining" about Catholicism? 17 years in case your wondering)
|the break is between legitimate businesses and the hustlers who should have been building businesses instead of spamming guestbooks all those years ago |
Again with the "ethical" nonsense (wow, thought you were one of us steveb. Did goog get to ya?!)
Let's see, in 5 industries, every single one of the top 10 sites across 100s of related phrases "hustle" for links. Oh wait, forgot to mention that they are all Fortune 1000 companies that you would recognize and have bought their products.
What in the world does "legitimate businesses" have to do with anything?
They are simply "playing the game" as Google has said, or more accurately, not specifically prevented, them to do.
And besides, ranking really has nothing do with this convo. As i've said numerous times, anyone can use white-hat, grey-hat, or black-hat techniques to easily rank and dominate it's category. It's just a matter of risk-tolerance and not a matter of ethics.
So back to the point of this discussion.... as soon as webmasters start realizing their true power, things will change. Period.
In case you didn't notice, many major non-WebmasterWorld outlets have been crying Goog has gone too far since MC's announcement a few weeks back.
Yea, sorry, they were all "legitimate" "white-hat" industry magazines and websites. Not those scamming 'hustlers' that say Goog is evil cause their pill and casino sites got banned.... ;)
| 9:54 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"It's just a matter of risk-tolerance and not a matter of ethics"
Even if its a matter of ethics, we gotta think those ethical "tricks/tips" which can lead our websites to TOP and thats what SEO must talk about rather then vocating the goodness of google and its guidelines which lead to denial of the fact that "long term or short term, things like link hunting, buying links, anchor text boost etc still work for bullying Google."
My definition of Ethical practise from SEO perspective would be the practise which can help you gaining top positions on serach engines for short/long term and making sure they sustain as well and do not detoriate the quality of website from a visitors point of view.
| 10:11 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Again with the "ethical" nonsense (wow, thought you were one of us steveb. Did goog get to ya?!)"
Why run away from the issue and bring up ethics? I never mentioned ethics. (I was certainly never "one of us" as I only cry at TV commercials.)
Spammers cry when they get caught. Oh boo hoo. But the point here is there is a hustler element who is threatened by google because their job is to try and trick them.
The reality these days though is the mature business people now predominate on the web. The guestbook spammers still make money, but who cares? The sooner that ilk get a life, the better. The guy driving in the next lane is not my enemy. The guy throwing rocks at passing cars is.
Google is not throwing rocks at me. They are swerving in the lanes a bit, largely because rrocks are being thrown at them, but they aren't TRYING to run me off the road. They in fact have the same destination as I do in mind... having searchers get the obectively-in-the-eyes-of-god best result they are looking for. We'll never get there, but that the direction we both want.
The "enemies" of Google have an entirely different agenda. They just want trick Google into serving bad results to their users. I have next to nothing in common with those people, even if they may be called "webmasters".
"It's just a matter of risk-tolerance and not a matter of ethics."
That's just pure silliness. Risk tolerance is not at issue here, and neither is ethics.
| 10:39 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
We must have very different views on how "businesses" work.
Let's try a simple burger analogy.
Heard of BurgerKing? Mcdonald's? Wendy's? Jack in the Box?
I dare you to find anyone over the age of 15 who thinks that's the best burger they've had.
Everytown, USA; UK; Germany; has a little deli down the street that has the best burger you've ever tasted.
Why does Joe's Deli not make millions for their "best-tasting burger"?
Cause it really has nothing to do with "content" aka how good the burger is compared to others...
The "brand-name companies" simply "hustled" the masses to buy their product (for whatever reason, convenience, price, familiarity, etc)
It's a lesson that Goog has learned as well.
They don't need to actually "be the best"...they just need to convince enough people they are best, or easiest, or whatever. Of course, it has nothing to do with reality
You call it "hustle"... Most "legitimate companies" call it their marketing strategy.
For the record - The word "hustle" = unethical.
Webster's definition = to obtain money by fraud or deception; to sell something to or obtain something by energetic and especially underhanded activity
If you personally don't have any worries about Goog, then fine, great. But I find it distasteful, and especially short-sighted, for some on here to continually disparage those who "distrust" or disagree with Google's tactics as scammers, whiners, or "hustlers".
What an arrogant, and extremely short-sighted, argument!
I suppose that these are the same people that argue that a government should be allowed to ignore an individual's right to privacy under the reasoning of
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be worried about"...
Absolutely no reasoning with that type of circular logic :rollseyes:
[edited by: whitenight at 10:56 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]
| 10:52 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Spammers cry when they get caught. Oh boo hoo. But the point here is there is a hustler element who is threatened by google because their job is to try and trick them. "
Be honest, dint you ever exchanged/asked links for the SEO benefit in your life?
| 11:12 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Nope, never asked for a link period. Advertised, yes. Asked for a link, nope. Result, google liked that and boosted us way up in the serps year two. We can say that all of our good links are 100% natural. We do have a lot of scrapers linking but that does not seem to effect the sites what so ever
[edited by: trinorthlighting at 11:14 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: 70 (  2 3 ) > > |