| 7:48 pm on May 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Links are allowed here. If something is quoted, then the link for that quote is appropriate - and even a journalistic requirement. And if such a link is outside the Google Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com] description, then so is the quote.
This article appears here: [launch.is...]
The article is irresponsible reporting and yellow journalism, just part of a publicity war. It's a perfect example of why we didn't used to allow links to any blogs at all. The only reason I allowed this thread is that the article seems to be getting mainstream coverage. And that shows you where mainstream news is headed.
So Matt Cutts denied that Google's ability to take manual action is frozen. I have no reason or evidence that this is anything but the truth - does anyone else? In fact, we've seen some very public manual steps in recent weeks.
Why shouldn't that be the end of the matter? The "Launch" team has already edited their article. Now they should either put up the evidence if they have it) or shut up. My advice - don't spend your valuable time and resources on reading junk like this. Improve your website instead.
| 8:04 pm on May 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
thats SPAM, not a manual intervention on moving a non-spam site up and down the SERPS - which I think is what the article is meant to be about... or maybe I should re-read the article !
|Google is still willing to take manual action on spam |
| 8:09 pm on May 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I've read it several times before I created this thread. Trust me, it's not worth your time to re-read. I'm not saying that Google criticism has no value - but this article is just garbage. It doesn't even get basic facts straight.
| 9:05 pm on May 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I found this article to be very confusing. Calacanis appears to be complaining because Google refuses to manually improve Mahalo's search rankings. But he also seems to be saying that governnment pressure is preventing Google from manually intervening. Very confusing
| 11:33 pm on May 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|When LAUNCH asked FTC spokesperson Claudia Borne Farrell if she would comment on whether the agency is planning to investigate Google’s search practices, she said, "No." |
That sounds like a "yes" to us.
No, means no! ;)
Manual exceptions could open the door to potential problems, legal or just bad press, but this blog post is a joke.
| 12:50 am on May 29, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Our handicapping of the situation is that HubPages and Suite101 felt they had nothing left to lose, after the Panda smack down, by openly confronting and criticizing Google. |
Do they mean their 'understanding' of the situation? Because their writing is handicapping my understanding of the points they are failing to make ...
Poor, poor attempt from Launch, shame on them. They can do better.
As an aside, I wonder just how long Matt Cutts is going to stay at Google, doesn't he ever get stressed out? He must do yoga or something to write so calmly in response about a piece like that ... me I'd want to shove it down their throats.
Although Matt, come on, run the classifier in Panda again for goodness sake, and let people who have been hard at work improving their sites benefit from a little love. I think enough dust has settled so no one will be any the wiser which of the twenty changes they made to their sites will have made the difference in the new update.
| 2:11 am on May 29, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Consider the source.
| 7:59 am on May 29, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I don't understand why it matters. Most of the confusion going on with Google right now has nothing to do with manual corrections.
That said, I know several people who after Panda 1.0 had their rankings restored by a manual correction. But no one after Panda 2.0, so if this is true it could have been something instituted after Panda 2.0.
| 2:55 pm on May 29, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Overstock had their -50 penalty lifted manually just 2 months after receiving it for shady link practices(the expiration time is generally much longer or permanent). None of us regular folk would be that lucky, I'd say there is still quite a bit of "manual" going on at G.