martinibuster - 4:28 pm on Oct 30, 2012 (gmt 0)
The truth is you have no idea why it was created.
You can quibble about whether what we perceive as blue really is blue or just an abberation of how our eyes function. You can quibble about what chicken tastes like or is supposed to taste like. Really, just about everything is fair game for quibbling.
However, what can be considered ground zero for fact is what was announced by Google and reiterated by Matt Cutts. Everything else is quibbling, suspicion, opinion, viewpoint, etc.
What I am saying is, don't confuse what was officially announced by Google with what you suspect. I'm fine with alternate motives and such. In fact, if you read the article, Matt Cutts admits there may be other uses down the line for the tool.
If those with an alternate opinion had given themselves the benefit of reading the post they would have cited this:
We haven’t decided whether we’ll look at this data more broadly. Even if we did, we have plenty of other ways of determining bad sites, and we have plenty of other ways of assessing that sites are actually good.
We may do spot checks, but we’re not planning anything more broadly with this data right now.
Come on people, I'm trying to raise the bar on this discussion and delivered to you on a silver platter the opportunity to rebut me with an official quote from Google and everyone missed it because none of you read the post I linked to. So I have to do it myself?
Ok, now that I have properly rebutted myself with an official link and citation, you now know there is a possibility that in the future Google may use the disavowal tool in other ways than has been stated to date. But that's just the possibility, a door that has been left ajar.