IngoZ - 11:17 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Google lost the war with SEOs and now they try to intimidate anyone. This is my opinion, sorry for my english but is not my native language.

Hope this is positive criticism.

Google is a search engine for rich people in the first place and only after for those with great ideas 1-5%.

Explanation: It's obvious those with money buy backlinks and reviews, they look clean because they can, using money you can buy anything and make it look natural. Without money to invest in backlinks and reviews (not in your content) you can't rank.
Google said they fight against paid links, they don't because they can't prove it in most situations and the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
Many of those who rank for regular keywords are ranking not because their sites have value but because their paid "propaganda" is better.

Google a webmaster search engine

Explanation: You are a regular visitor of my site and you like my site, how can you "vote" for my site if you don't have a blog or website or if you don't use any forums to place my link. You can't that is why there are many non-relevant results, because almost anyone buys links and reviews, or spam while the visitors that are the real target of the site can't "vote" because they don't have a website. How many visitors of a site about pets even if they buy a lot of products and are satisfied have a website to link to your site, and then answer to yourself how representative and relevant is Google, how representative is the sample they choose (webmaster only search engine) when they rank the websites. As comparition is like the period when only white people or only men had the right to vote even if all lived in the same society, non-webmasters have no right to "vote". Is like you have to own a car, a house (comparision with website, blog) to be able to "vote".
Using this algorithm (80-90% backlinks) they can't be relevant, representative because our visitors, our clients can't "vote" for the website. Most of them use Facebook, Twitter to share a link but for Google doesn't matter, they use backlinks, but backlinks are not proving the value of a site, are showing the financial power of some companies or people. SEO is simple, not a big deal when you have money, give me 50.000 USD and I will buy backlinks and reviews with them for a very bad site, in a normal situation I will rank in the first 10 positions while those that work hard but don't have mega ultra awesome content will rank nowhere.

Spammers, those without money to spend to buy backlinks or reviews are spamming, they are not always the bad guys, they are somehow like Robin Hood, fighting agains all these people who think money can buy anything.

They should not penalize anyone, they should improve they algorithm to be more representative, relevant, a social +1 search engine for example with a good and complex anti-fraud system.