Forum Moderators: open
I created goodgooglebomb.com as a site where PageRank can be shared for a good cause. Hopefully forum members may choose to support it and have some fun at the same time. I would like to get feedback on the concept as well as suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks in advance.
I would guess it will incur a penalty or grey/white PR soon
The problem is who is to define good? Some people think human rights are ultimate, others think it causes problems. Some people like gay whales.
Not sure what the point is but always open to be convinced!
I never like to see sites get hit with penalties and I hope your site does not, however it could be border lined for it because its based on getting higher PR via linkage swapping. I dont know how google people would respond. Chances are one of them already has seen this post and is wispering amoungst their coworkers about it.
Hopefully those wispers are for the better :o
Also I dont think google will be to impressed about you using their logo!
You're correct to point out that opinions vary. I'll be incorporating a voting system so the majority will get their way. I'm sure there are holes in it which is why I'm looking for feedback.
goodgooglebomb.com was created as a diversion to have a bit of fun and just maybe help some sites out that could use it.
[edited by: dantheman at 6:10 am (utc) on June 6, 2002]
I hope it does work out because I can see situations where a site does deserve Good traffic but is beat in the serps purely by PR.
Good luck!
Concerning google's policy, I do not believe their TOS is violated. My gut feel is that google has historically thrived in the media on different uses of it's technology and could well gain much PR from it. This could introduce a whole new group of Internet users to PageRank, their Toolbar, etc. Anyway, we'll see...
And the theme is extremely diffuse. I guess just about everyone, on any "non-commercial" topic would say they 'deserve' more page rank!
To be positive, why dont you give this a theme and talk more of what you think is "good" Then it can be the "Google Bomb for Good" site and I am sure treated by Google as just good fun. As i said, people's definition of 'good' differs.. you just need to look at current global politics to know that. So it would be an interesting experiment just for defining that too..
The reason why I didn't want to list 5 sites to vote on initially was because my selections would color the theme. But if you think I should to get the ball rolling then I will.
Nearly every other site promoting (good) goals asks for people to link to them.
Whats the difference? Dantheman just clearly names the reason: Pagerank.
What will Google do? I would guess nothing other than they already have. As soon as this site links back (extensively) to their pagerank donators it will be treated as a linkfarm/bad neighbourhood. If the site links predominantly to other sites I do not see a problem.
The site should be seen as any other directory for good causes (if thats what it is).
Blogs are different in that they link to a specific page for that reason or subject, and they tend to use the force of anchortext to emphasise their vote. The linked to page from bloggers is not predominantly set-up to pass on links or pagerank to others (they are often just bombed victims). Blog links tend to loose their effect over time, as they get burried into lower ranked pages, dilluted with all the other links in the blog.
If anything else, Google will just see more need for topical pagerank soonest.
I'm really curious about Google's response to your idea. I suspect they will not be happy.
First of all, you should have registered as a dot-org instead of a dot-com. You should re-register now if you're serious about pursuing this.
Secondly, you should seek sponsorship from a legally-recognized nonprofit corporation. If Ralph Nader was doing this, I'd be impressed that he had such an interesting idea. But Ralph Nader wouldn't do it unless he had a thorough-going understanding that PageRank was slanted against the public interest. Furthermore, Google wouldn't PR zero a Ralph Nader without thinking twice. (I'm not saying that this is a problem with PageRank; I'm just saying that a Ralph Nader would have some evidence collected before he acts against a corporation like Google.)
Since someone I don't know is doing it from Australia, and is doing it as a dot-com, and doesn't have a nonprofit track record, I wouldn't touch it as a nonprofit. What are your (or your voters) qualifications to determine who's acceptable in your link program?
Third -- and this is most important -- I don't think Google will like it. You'll probably get PR zeroed. The reason Google won't like it is because you're intruding on their turf. If Google wanted to promote nonprofits over commercial sites, they'd tweak an algo at the 'plex in Mountain View, California. They would not hand over control and power to someone else just because you got the idea first and you're a good guy.
Finally, you need to develop content. You need research and documentation showing that a corrective to Google is needed, and that your site is a move in that direction. That alone will make it much harder for Google to zap.
Doofus - how'd you guess I'm Ralph in disguise? Just kidding but I appreciate your suggestions.
I'd like to get 5 good site suggestions up so the site has a bit more depth. I need your help guys. :)
By design, Dmoz openly allows other sites to take category pages which all point back to Dmoz (not just the listing in the categories).
By default, Dmoz, screens, vote, edit, accepts and/or declines pages and some get to share that PR built by openly allowing (suggesting) sites to link to them.
Is it really that different if you change the to "bolded" terms around and replace Dmoz with goodgooglebomb.com
Same results isn't it?
[edited by: fathom at 7:14 am (utc) on June 6, 2002]
I think you are going about this the wrong way.
[edited by: Lisa at 7:11 am (utc) on June 6, 2002]
Fathom - I'm afraid I don't follow your post. Mum always said I was "special" though...
I chose the name as it was recognizeable and shared the general concept. Google bombing historically means multiple sites linking, but I can assure you that a single well placed link can have a big effect. Thanks for your comments though.
Thank you. You've articulated what I felt in my gut. I almost used the term "perpetual motion machine" to describe my gut feeling about the goodgooglebomb concept in my last post, but couldn't quite grasp what you've articulated.
Here's the thing -- how can a middleman get rich while also enriching both buyer and seller.
PageRank may be flawed in some respects, but it doesn't defy gravity and it's not altogether stupid. And that's even before it gets a PR zero from the 'plex.
A few days ago after alltheweb updated their crawl notice a huge jump in link popularity.
On checking the back links, found 300+ sites all having the dmoz category page on each of their sites.
Those 300 sites are not gaining any link popularity (or PR if google indexes them)
"My page is" and so is Dmoz category page.
In your model - my page would be the one being voted for!
[edited by: dantheman at 7:46 am (utc) on June 6, 2002]
Apple's - Annual Report 2003 -
Social paragraph:
Pagerank 10 link donations:
- greenpeace.org
- redcross.org
From Greenpeace's 2003 annual overview:
We would like to thank the following donating sites:
- Adobe.com - three pagerank 10 links
- Nasa.gov - two pagerank 10 links
On a more serious and related note:
Greenpeace and the Redcross, but also lesser known gods, already get an amazing amount of links and high PR's. For many sites it already is more "good form" than an "educated and motivated reasoning" to link to these sites (hey, we need a links page, lets set up a good looking one!). I already have serious competition from .org and .edu sites in SERP's because of this type of linking.
Do not forget that non-profit sites already get an indirect boost in Google's ranking:
- By their very nature, they can most probably get an easier/quicker/less questions asked listing in DMOZ.
- Yahoo and many other directories (Zeal) lists them for free.
- Commercial sites promoting their "hub-ness" or "Portal authority" are more likely to link to non-profit sites than to (possibly) competing commercial sites.
Personally I find many commercial sites to be more informative than many non-profit set-ups - I guess these sites need a commercial version of your "Goodgooglebomb" to fight against the above mentioned unfair advantage ;).
First, ask any good cause entity whether they prefer higher PR from one PR authority (e.g. googlebomb.com) or many links from people supporting the good cause. Clearly, the second alternative would win. You are creating an intermediary where no intermediary is needed.
Second, majority voting of PR recipients can still cause that relatively large part of PR donors will be unhappy about the decision. Chiyo's gay whales will have no chance in majority voting system. Gay whales would prefer a decentralized system of support links/votes.
Third, PR is about links and links are a kind of votes. This concept centralizes the votes into one big supervote and then redistributes it. As with any kind of redistribution and centralization, there are inherent problems of inefficiency and potential power abuse.
Why not just create a site explaining the concept of link=vote, list some interesting good causes webs and tell to people how to create direct links?
Maybe setting the example of where, how and who to link to on your site for others would be more of a good cause.
