Whitey - 7:59 pm on Jul 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

I was listening to Matt Cutt's words about how Google looks at the "reputation" of a site [ and therefore, by default, it's webmasters ] on advances SEO at [mattcutts.com...] in it's quest for improving search result quality.

He appeared to speak in a manner of tolerance, which is interesting because Google issues "guidelines" not rules.

With guidelines, there is nothing to "break" , unlike rules. Guidelines are "inexact" - strong rules have specific boundaries and consequences attached to them.

Matt also reflected the obvious, that he recognised that SEO's will try to push beyond those boundaries with new techniques , and he responded by saying that Google will pursue those that break this "trust". You may get a brief advantage, but Google will work hard to catch those offenders [ in an operational sense ].

If this philososphy is translated and applied into Google's algorithmn and human editorial operations , then i would expect that tolerance could be respected to a point. Beyond this, heavy penalties might be applied from which the "reputation" of a webmaster or website may spend a heavy duty of penalisation.

Google does however, have to struggle with it's occassional error of algorithmic judgement and human discretion [ as with any complex technical process of selection ] in a fast moving and responsive environment.

ie they can't always get it right , even though they pursue it and some folk's sites will get caught in the cross fire and completely forgotten.

When folks file a reinclusion request , somebody at the other end is going to analyse the "reputation" of the site - the capacity to "forgive" will likely be an act of "good faith" based on the editors interpretation of the past behaviour patterns against Google's guidelines.

Indeed the guidelines use these exact words. Which reflect in the words "trust". If you break trust badly, you will have difficulty restoring your reputation.

In a competitive landscape where search volumes, survival , innovation quality, user value and prosperity collide , that's a hard balancing act for all sides to administer, achieve and therefore, work through.

Maybe we should be turning this question around. Can we trust Google to forgive ?