|...creating new content to hide negative material is fair play. |
That's reassuring, as, in my experience, that's too often been the necessary strategy.
Also cited in the article is Ripoff Report and its founder, Ed Magedson, who parades his site under the banner of free speech. Under current law, as I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), Ripoff Report is not legally responsible for false information.
|Critics of the Ripoff Report say Magedson actually fuels suppression efforts because he refuses to take down false complaints on his site. |
This can be a nightmare for those unfairly attacked. As the article suggests, small businesses and those without web marketing expertise are particularly vulnerable.
In addition to Google results, Google search suggestions are also a problem for businesses and individuals affected.
Reviews on Google Place Pages are also entering into the mix. Here are several current threads in WebmasterWorld about malicious reviews on Google Maps, where it's perhaps less easy to bury a negative page, because a Place Page is a Place Page.
See these discussions...
A New Scam - Bad Reviews in Google Maps
This discussion in Supporters
Urgent Situation w BAD Google Review
I am confused - how does creating new content hide the negatives?
|I am confused - how does creating new content hide the negatives? |
If I understand it, Google is saying that it's okay for big corporations to use their money to create extra websites solely for the purpose of pushing certain other websites off of the first page so that fewer people will see them.
What about using this same strategy to push the sites of legitimate competitors off the first page? Is this also okay with Google?
There is so much emphasis now on the 'social' aspect of the web to rate and rank things. I can see it backfiring big-time.
Any technique used to push down untrue bad reviews can also be used to push down (true) bad reviews.
But I think the ones seeking to do damage will always have an advantage if they are anonymous, since they have nothing to lose.
The techniques Google was asked about are detailed in the article. It's not just more content,but more content hosted in different places, including profiles on various social media sites.
|What about using this same strategy to push the sites of legitimate competitors off the first page |
If your competitors are ranking for your business name, I'd say yes.
Ok - thanks for that.
My competitor has 6 out of 8 sites from 1 to 8 in the serps for one single two word phrase.
I was almost about to do the same anyway due to being fed up of being nice on this project - now I am definately going down the same route he did.
Im having a small smirk here - being humorous when I say that my reasoning to goofle would be.
"Hey goofle - I know the guy wasnt saying my sites suck - so the only reason he has 6 sites must be that hes a spammer. So - I will get 50 sites now and bump that spammer out of the serps doing everyone a favour.
Think it will wash?
While the short term in such activity might work... it will only clog the "system" until no one (user) can find anything. I think the backfire in such rampant site creations might come sooner than later.
Why internet become such a mess. Even goog encourage things like this?