Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
So it seems Google applies the time out penalty regardless of the size of a web site, regardless of AdSense income or not.
If you open up a night club or restaurant, you can also leave people outside, if you don't like them.
At this moment - when Google indexes each page individually making it necessary to stuff pages with keywords - BMW style doorway pages are a must have. If it weren't for doorway pages you wouldn't find BMW.de when searching for "bmw 5er neuwagen".
Search engines index keywords and keyphrases. For better or worse, that's how they work. If BMW.de wanted to show up for "bmw 5er neuwagen," why couldn't it just create a legitimate page for that topic? (Preferably one that isn't obviously stuffed with keywords for SEO's sake?)
I said several times that Google was within its rights to act - but not without notice.
Google tolerated BMW's abberant behaviour for a period. I don't know how long. Then it decided the behaviour was unacceptable - and as we know, the rules have long since been published. But - they had not been applied to BMW and BMW were conducting business via Google. There's a precedent in law created by Góogle's tolerance that requires a suitable notice period.
This is hypothetical, but - the direct contribution to BMW's business from its searchability in Google was probably a few percent of turnover at the very most. But what if it were another company - let's say in the travel business - that derived 80% of its income that way?
All running fine with no error messages one day, and no business the next?
This is one reason why I've been proposing that Google expand the sitemaps schema to add a <webmaster> </webmaster> structure so that automated warning messages can be sent to whoever is responsiblel for the site.
60 days until we drop you unless you ...
59 days until we drop you unless you ...
58 days until we drop you unless you ...
57 days until we drop you unless you ...
This is one reason why I've been proposing that Google expand the sitemaps schema to add a <webmaster> </webmaster> structure so that automated warning messages can be sent to whoever is responsiblel for the site.60 days until we drop you unless you ...
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see how users and Google will benefit from letting spammers know exactly how much time they have to profit from their spam before the ax comes down.
As for the argument that Google was legally obligated to give BMW notice that it was violating its rules, that seems pretty farfetched to me, but that's a matter for the courts to decide in the unlikely event that BMW is foolish enough to drag out an episode that the company's top management would almost certainly like the public to forget.
Because, in many cases, the users aren't the spammers - it's their SEO company.
And anyone can make a mistake and hire the wrong SEO. There is pressure on these guys to perform and they use black hat stuff they think they can get away with without the actual "user" knowing anything about it.
Until their business disappears. Which is one hell of a penalty. Even the most draconian anti-Microsofties might welcome the EU's imposition of large fines, but no one would advocate shutting the comany down.
And Google effectively "fining" a user for their unknowing use of a black hat SEO transcends all my ideas of justice. But then there have been people in Guantanamo now for four years without trial - perhaps that's the new world.
And I reiterate - I would be VERY surprised indeed if BMW's response to Google didn't scare it witless.
It might be some time before we see another unilateral banning without a significant warning period. They're Google's rules and it has every right to enforce them, but not if it damages another company's business without any notice being given.
Because, in many cases, the users aren't the spammers - it's their SEO company.
Users = searchers
And anyone can make a mistake and hire the wrong SEO.
Caveat emptor.
But then there have been people in Guantanamo now for four years without trial - perhaps that's the new world.
Apples and oranges.
And I reiterate - I would be VERY surprised indeed if BMW's response to Google didn't scare it witless.
I'd be surprised if BMW were foolish enough to draw any more attention to something that has already tarnished its image in the general consumer and business press.
Oh please.
I hope the URLs in this will be forgiven - they're obviously from very public and very referenced sites and none are mine or in any way associated with me.
I've trawled the press and found very little useful. There are no attributable quotes from BMW that I can find - the best is this. Note the estimate that only 0.4% of their business comes from the web:
"Der BMW-Sprecher erklärte, man sei überrascht über den Schritt von Google gewesen."
So - no warning given, according to BMW. But according to Google:
[pcwelt.de...]
"Matt Cutts, Chef-Entwickler bei Google, begrüßte die schnelle Reaktion von BMW. Das Webspam-Team von Google habe zuvor in Kontakt mit BMW gestanden."
Matt doesn't say this in his blog entry.
BMW is laughing all the way to the bank - they've never seen so much traffic.
And just how much money are they earning from that traffic? (They aren't in the business of running CPM ads.)
I've trawled the press and found very little useful.
I've seen articles in FORBES and British newspapers, along with some other media. (I didn't bookmark the stories--I had no reason to do so.) BMW certainly can't feel flattered by the coverage.
So, you're saying that BMW didn't read the "Guidelines for Webmasters" where it spells out that if you break certain rules then you will not be listed?
>> ... sue Google for damaging their business ... <<
In that case, whoever should be #1 for "used BMW" should be suing BMW for damaging their business by stealing their #1 place in Google, no?
They said that "Google had its page rank reduced to zero" not that "the site had been delisted". There is a world of difference.
The BBC also has a direct link to the BMW site now, and so have thousands of other sites that would not have linked otherwise.
LOL - Who said bad publicity was worse than no publicity...
LOL - Who said bad publicity was worse than no publicity...
CEOs don't think like SEOs, and I doubt if "But look at all the inbound links!" will carry much weight with BMW's top management.
Probably true, but it still cracks me up...
So, you're saying that BMW didn't read the "Guidelines for Webmasters" where it spells out that if you break certain rules then you will not be listed?
Probably not.
If they hired an SEO company to do this it would be because they did not know how to do it themselves. Only a tiny percentage of people have any clue about SEO. I would assume that the person who appointed the SEO company knew nothing about it and probably did not want to know anything about it.
It was probably the old, "Don't bother me with the detail ... just get on with it" syndrome.
