| 4:27 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
All the statements I've seen maintain that the "Chinese Wall" is still in place between these different areas.
| 1:25 am on Aug 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I believe Analytics is already being used indirectly, in terms of establishing trends, and then in semantic application (query meaning)
My sense would be that WMT would be an obvious way to check a range of websites, should the webmaster register a range of websites under the same account, and prove to play against the Google Guidelines consistently.
| 8:08 am on Aug 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I see no reason what Google would not use "anonymised data" from one dept for another.
Analytics might be a way of gathering generic user behaviour on various types of sites. As long as that data was only used to set policy or analyse trends, and not as actual ranking criteria, I think its a golden data source.
| 1:17 pm on Aug 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|All the statements I've seen maintain that the "Chinese Wall" is still in place between these different areas. |
Ah, so you mean both sides know exactly what's going on and their passing data back and forth constantly but such is denied completely in the media? ;)
| 7:18 pm on Aug 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
No, you wise guy ;) -- that's not what I meant. I mean that Anaytics and Adwords/Adsense data does not affect organic ranking and Google has unambiguosly stated that fact many times.
| 8:46 pm on Aug 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Anaytics and Adwords/Adsense data does not affect organic ranking |
Not being pedantic ... but you didn't mention WMT. Has there been no denial of their usage? Could their be such a denial as the input into WMT is meant to affect results. So if an SEO puts his 100+ clients in to WMT --- could they be condemning them to being identified as a "ring" or "network" if they are similar types of site?
| 8:51 pm on Aug 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I haven't heard of it happening, only people worrying that it might.
| 10:17 pm on Aug 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If I were Google I would HAVE to be interested in WMT or Analytics accounts with multiple sites in them. These by definition say either 'SEO company' or 'professional webmaster'. Exactly the sort of people Google needs to keep an eye on. And as others have said, that doesn't mean they need to know exactly who is doing exactly what to gain insights from the data.
| 3:36 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
So what is the alternative to not keeping all of your websites in a single WMT and Analytics account? Even if you were to create separate WMT and Analytics accounts for those 100+ sites, are you also going to access WMT and Analytics using geographically diverse IP addresses? Otherwise, what's the point? I'm sure G is smart enough to keep tabs on whether the same IP address is admin'ing multiple WMT and Analytics accounts.
| 6:06 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
These sort of commentaries give me goose bumps. Not sure if you smell what I'm cooking. Anyways, a bit of transparency would be nice. It would be nice to know from them, what it means if we put all our eggs in one basket. Need we be paranoid? (sorry to use that word again) I would just like to know what the actual risks are. Is it like a government when you send in your taxes, then look at your information, then decide if you need to be audited. Think of a penalty as a fine from the government. Smell what I'm cooking? Once signed up and sites listed, are you now a single entity? All your behaviour good or bad is logged, tracked and kept forever? Once you've done something wrong, is that now part of your permanent history with Google because you've got your name/ID to your sites and account? Sorry folks, just saying what a lot of you are probably thinking. The fact is, nobody knows what happens. That's the part now that I've had my eyes opened, is slightly eerie. Are you sure you've all been good boys and girls? The answer to that is kind of obvious. Money does strange things to people. Just look at corporate America. You can't tell me that the mentality stops short of the internet.
| 6:40 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I personally am not bothered that Google *might* be treating data from accounts with multiple sites differently from accounts with one site, but that's because I don't mind if I get a hand review for any one of my sites.
If you run a network of sites then you should realise that Google would probably like to stop you being successful in that. Doesn't matter what domain reg / personal IP / WMT & Analytics accounts / C class IP block etc etc setup you have - that's all just how careful you are.
Your intention determines your actions. If you have to disguise your intention then be prepared.
| 7:15 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
This forum has been really great for me lately. I'm certainly more educated and wiser than ever before. I'm not sure if the success of Google has anything to do with the amount of eyes they have on things, but there sure is a lack of transparency. Most times when you fill out of form or sign onto something, there is a document or a waiver. At that point you understand the risks of signing on. Now, does the most naive webmaster realize that their IP, whois, host, adsense, WMT are probably being monitored? It's baffling to me because doesn't whois have a privacy setting? Is it just Google or can every search engine access whois? Perhaps somebody can enlighten me. My point is, you may be fine with being watched over, but at the very least you should be made aware that you are being watched over. Make sense?
| 5:56 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If you were running Google and your index was under continual assault by all kinds of spam - including highly organized, very big budget botnet builders - how much transparency would you offer?
I think we get quite a bit. Sure there's spin and FUD, but before Google began opening communication lines with webmasters, there was almost no communication at all from any search engine.
The field of search-engines-plus-webmasters is a competitive-cooperative game. That's the reality of the situation. No search engine can afford to hand out a "build your own #1 rankings" kit.
When it comes to Google accessing Whois information, it was never a secret when Google formally became a registrar. It was never a secret when they partnered with Domain Tools for bulk registration data, either.
Here's my rule of thumb. To the degree a business model is focused on rankings and traffic, rather than products, service and customers, that business risks pushing the envelope far enough to get penalized or banned. It's what any search engine must do - it's the nature of the beast.
| 12:34 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Everyone talks about the possible negative consequences of having all websites under one WMT account, but I think there might be an important positive. We have two websites. The first one took ages to get any sort of good ranking (months actually). It was built completely white-hat and has been around for a little over a year now. My hope was that having a good solid website already associated with the WMT account might make a subsequent, brand new sites more trusted. The second one we brought up ranked very well within a few short weeks. There are lots of variables I realize, and having only two sites is no way to gauge something like this I know. But intuitively it makes sense to me that an account having several trusted sites *may* lead G to look with less distrust on brand new sites that are brought into that account. Just a thought.
| 8:54 am on Aug 28, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Once you've done something wrong, is that now part of your permanent history with Google because you've got your name/ID to your sites and account? |
That's my concern. The set of websites I actually use WMT for (11 sites) all seemed to be penalised at the same time. I have no idea what for - such a penalty would suggest interlinking but none do.
| 6:43 pm on Aug 28, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|The set of websites I actually use WMT for (11 sites) all seemed to be penalised at the same time. I have no idea what for - such a penalty would suggest interlinking but none do. |
Once you eliminate interlinking, my next thought would be coordinated inbound linking patterns common to all of the sites, coupled with other indicators.