homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.23.22.200
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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 38 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 38 ( 1 [2]     
Google’s Jaw-Dropping Sponsored Post Campaign For Chrome
alvin123




msg:4403087
 4:38 am on Jan 3, 2012 (gmt 0)

"Google’s paying to produce a lot of garbage, the same type of garbage that its Panda Update was designed to penalize."

[searchengineland.com ]

 

madmatt69




msg:4403694
 7:15 pm on Jan 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

As if the penalty will stick for very long. Just like with the google japan fiasco and any number of companies they've purchased then had to punish. If google's rules are too confusing for themselves to follow it's absurd for them to think the rest of the web will too. I'm sure Chrome won't be having to lay anybody off or close their doors when they get 'slapped' by google, in the same way that many other small web operations have had to close their doors in particular over the last year.

tangor




msg:4403717
 8:02 pm on Jan 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

<tinfoilon>Let's see if anyone notices, and if they do nuke it for publicity.</tinfoiloff>

Actually, that's tongue in cheek. Meant only to show that even the brainiacs can make stoopid missteaks like the rest of us. Only when we do it, it hurts worse. When G does it, it's front page news and keeps the "brand" in the public eye and ear. WIN WIN for "brand".

Whitey




msg:4403737
 8:51 pm on Jan 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

Sometimes they had a history of pushing the boundaries, but other times it just seemed impossible to understand.

Maybe this incident raises the awareness of treating penalties in an even handed way. WMT would be a good way to upgrade the communication and penalty handling process'as well by being more specific and timely.

Arguments against this are that it teaches spammers the boundary limits and what Google hasn't managed to pick up, but issuing "warnings" would be enough to deter practices outside guidelines.

The other argument is that Google's algorithmn doesn't necessarily pick up all offences, and as in this case, relies on manual inputs.

Should Google improve it's handling of penalties through WMT?

tangor




msg:4403739
 8:57 pm on Jan 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

Should Google improve it's handling of penalties through WMT?


This would be the commonsense way, but would require real humans to be involved, not an utter reliance on an algo. This would require the same type of management as utilized here at Webmasterworld: human beings operating under established (published) rules. Unfortunately, there's that issue of SCALE... and the salaries attached. So, even though that would be the best of worlds, it is not likely to happen from a profit point of view.

Whitey




msg:4403762
 10:01 pm on Jan 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

Unfortunately, there's that issue of SCALE...

Perhaps there are some interim improvements, like better consistancy on occassional communications already produced in the WMT panel.

c41lum




msg:4403791
 11:35 pm on Jan 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

Its a conspiracy theory I know, but I wouldnt be surprised if this is a tactical move to prove to the EU and US antitrust cases that they treat there own companies the same as competitors.

Doing this would give themselves the perfect defense. Shame they don't downgrade there price comparison service (froogle/product search) like they have done to all of their competitors.

rlange




msg:4404049
 2:41 pm on Jan 5, 2012 (gmt 0)

c41lum wrote:
Its a conspiracy theory I know, but I wouldnt be surprised if this is a tactical move to prove to the EU and US antitrust cases that they treat there own companies the same as competitors.

Doing this would give themselves the perfect defense.

Too many players directly involved; too many weak links.

Assuming Google to be the originator in this hypothetical conspiracy, there are three options: 1) Google let Essence Digital in on the conspiracy, 2) Google told Essence Digital to do what was done, 3) Google told Essence Digital to do something innocent hoping that they'd instead do something "bad".

Option 1: There are three more options: 1a) Essence Digital let Unruly Media in on the conspiracy, 1b) Essence Digital told Unruly Media to do what was done, and 1c) Essence Digital told Unruly Media to do something innocent hoping that they'd instead do something "bad".

Option 1a: You now have three independent organizations with no doubt multiple individuals within each organization aware of the conspiracy. That's a horrible conspiracy. Someone is bound to talk.

Option 1b: I believe Essence Digital denied that what Unruly Media did is what Essence Digital requested. Unruly Media could easily expose the lie by pointing to the contract they signed with Essence Digital. At this point Essence Digital either takes the fall or exposes the conspiracy.

Option 2: This is similar to Option 1b, except between Google and Essence Digital.

Option 3 and Option 1c: Too much chance involved. That's a horrible conspiracy.

--
Ryan

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4404414
 11:47 am on Jan 6, 2012 (gmt 0)

off topic a little but this reafirms the strength a small blog has on the internet, Google wouldn't have wasted their time otherwise.

This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 38 ( 1 [2]
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.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved