Leosghost - 12:39 am on Aug 19, 2012 (gmt 0)
I sort of like seeing some validation from Google for things that I've been observing.
Presumably though, you don't always wait, for their ( somewhat oblique ) confirmation that they are seeing how high they can make SEOs jump and in what direction..
Before announcing that what you observe they are doing is creating FUD designed to see who jumps the most, and thus sort out who are the Frogs in "their" Pond ..
Given how much of what they say publicly, and / or write on their own properties is either "denial" or mis-directional PR", it is pretty much only by reading their patent applications, that they can be pinned down, as to what they have in mind, without them having the ability to "edit" and re-write history or weasel out, of by claiming to having "misspoke"..
Your time spent poring over the patents is indeed valued, hence my wish to make clear that I was not "sideswiping at you" ..far from it..:)
What surprises me is that so few had come to the obvious conclusion that they were " beating the brush" ,before the patent that you mentioned.. because apparently so many believe that G does not misdirect or spread FUD about what they are doing..and wait for "word from on high" or for "the plex to speak" before they will face reality about what is behind some actions by G..
Patents are not something that they can hide..but frequently their actions betray their intentions long before the patents come to light, to those who are not bewitched by their PR, and their newly declared wish to be "transparent"..
I would recommend to anyone studying Google and their actions to also study political philosophy and the histories of civilisations and religions, with some applied psychology and economics thrown in..and the Jesuits.. I posit that Google have studied these things , so should everyone, webmasters included..
Such things are IMO, as important to Google as the maths around the various elements of the algos and play a very large part, if not the major part, in the decisions of what criteria to include in the algos..
Google ..they are fascinating to watch at their work..