Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Lets just take a look at the famous George Bush (and now Michael Moore) Google Bomb. If you dont know...do a search for Failure in Google and then view the cache to find out the Keyword Density for those pages is a big fat 0.
[edited by: tedster at 8:19 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]
By improving our analysis of the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs... Algorithms are great because they scale well: computers can process lots of data very fast, and robust algorithms often work well in many different languages. That's what we did in this case, and the extra effort to find a good algorithm helps detect Googlebombs in many different languages.
Hmmm.... does this mean we've actually had an algorithm update?
Googlebombs very rarely happen for common queries, because the lack of any relevant results for that phrase is part of why a Googlebomb can work...
Interesting.
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:56 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]
if (linktext!= in_website()) { dontrank() }
'corse you do know that you just threw down a fresh gauntlet to every black hat seo to try to make one stick again Adam ..
or was that the idea ..hopefully keep everyone too busy to have the time to spam the index? :)
Is this something that the Black Hats will be using to try and Googlebomb a competitors legitimately ranked site out of the SERPS?
If this is true then it is important to follow the advice given by some people on this forum, such as not obtaining too many links too fast and varying the anchor text of these links.
I'm surprised they actually spent the time to post this.
and then come on here to comment on it.
Again, I ask you Google, "Who exactly are you trying to 'scare'"?
It took experienced SEOs less than 2 minutes to discount your claims.
Now perhaps people will listen when I say take EVERYTHING GG, Adam, or MC says with a grain of salt.
Nice of you to leave the "articles" about how effective Google Bombing is tho. ;)
[edited by: whitenight at 11:08 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]
Sem4u's point about part of the consideration being the lack of the anchor text appearing on the target page, makes total sense, however it probably also kicks in when the anchor text isn't found on the source page either (other than in the link, obviously).
This change will therefore impact not just Googlebombs but all those link buying schemes where the anchor has nothing to do with anything else on either page. A relatively straighforward calculation, you'd think.
However, there will be some innocent victims too - when wasn't that the case with an algorithm change!
I have noticed this morning one big client's home page drop a few places for a phrase that involved the word 'cheap', which historically has not been present on their home page, nor much across their whole site due to brand sensitivities, but performed due to the volume of links that included the word. The most likely cause of this drop, on what was otherwise a pretty stable result, is therefore this Googlebomb change.
Interesting times.
Steve
funny thing is the serps in question never had any bombs in them ..would this mean that instead of google bombs we can now build tecnorati cluster***** ( military term ..which I cant use here :) that might not be too clever a thing to let happen to the serps in these re-adjusted political times ;-)
added
'specially if the same thing is happening stateside ..
[edited by: Leosghost at 11:06 am (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]
The "click here" thing is interesting. I'd suggest whiteknight is jumping to conclusions and I don't think we could say yet that google's claims have been "discounted." Google could simply have done what NedProf suggested and not ranked a page is the anchor text wasn't on the page, but presumably that's not the approach they took.
Does that make sense from a "we don't want blackhats or spammers to reverse-engineer our algo" point of view?
Ok, so assuming they have instituted this algo change, why not just put it in the algo quiet-like and let it's effects work with their desired purpose.
It's easy to replace "well-known" google bombs, but less publicized ones are still showing up, so what does that mean to me?
Take my opinions with a grain of salt, just make sure you take G employees 1-3's with 2 pinches of salt. :)
Like all Google "announcements", you have to ask yourself, If they actually HAVE instituted the new policy, "WHY are they announcing it to the outside world?"
Just a suggestion, but since googlebombs are news then a change that affects googlebombing is also news.
Another suggestion: Google likes getting in the news.
Does that make sense from a "we don't want blackhats or spammers to reverse-engineer our algo" point of view?
I presume they have confidence that they're not publishing anything that's going to be terribly useful to blackhats or spammers.
Ok, so assuming they have instituted this algo change, why not just put it in the algo quiet-like and let it's effects work with their desired purpose.
Why would they announce they'd made a change to the algorithm if they hadn't?
It's easy to replace "well-known" google bombs, but less publicized ones are still showing up, so what does that mean to me?
That's an interesting question and one that deserves to be looked into, but as with most questions of that nature it's best not to jump to conlusions.
Take my opinions with a grain of salt, just make sure you take G employee 1-3's with 2 pinches of salt. :)
You like your salt, eh? :)
While some salt is useful too much is bad for you :)
I'm still waiting for their clear definition for "boilerplate repetition".
--------
Now, on a more philosophical level...
Technically, a "Googlebomb" (sometimes called a "linkbomb" since they're not specific to Google) refers to a prank where people attempt to cause someone else's site to rank for an obscure or meaningless query.
My goodness, the most well-known googlebomb isn't a "prank" at all but a clear indication of the recent political climate in the US. With Whitehouse and Michael Moore ranking.
Why is G "filtering" anything at all?!
(Shall I add this to Google's China Policy for "evil-ness")
Because non-SEOs don't realize that G can be manipulated?
Yea, that does reflect poorly on the company
HOWEVER, the well-known "pranks" aren't pranks at all and in the above case is equivalent to political censorship.
(And once again, I found yet another "bomb" that hasn't been effected...)
An algorhythm update to put an end to Googlebombing, but Google bombs in another area by sticking niche authority sites at the bottom of the results...
[edited by: AndyA at 1:31 pm (utc) on Jan. 26, 2007]
how do we, as small business people, put the heat on Google to do things in OUR best interests?
i know the big G has the best food, swimming pools, pool tables and not like we need to be reminded, plenty of money, etc etc but hey, while we love Matt etc, where is the REAL ombudsman?
Where is the much needed process for mediating claims, resolving difficulties, dealing with things that don't scale well?
Can't they spend a bit more in that department?
Back in the day, we had powerful users groups that had things like Customer Advisory Boards which worked to truly improve product features and benefits.
/end rant
I still get interesting responses when searching for French Military Victories though ;)
WBF
However, even though this is very impressive and very odd saying its been there for years and only a few days after me mentioning it's gone...I doubt the mention had anything to do with it but still interesting to say the least.
But....no one mentioned that the Michael Moore bomb still sits..it dropped a little but it is still there which means..well really a whole lot of things.
AndAgain
Link text still and will always play a huge role in any algo.
Maybe since mine was only a couple of links it was only a Google Firecracker, and not a full fledged Google Bomb, so it slipped thru the cracks ;)
try and Googlebomb a competitors legitimately ranked site out of the SERPS?
The answer is likely no. In the blog post, it appears they are identifying non-competitive phrases. That's why I quoted this part in my previous post:
Googlebombs very rarely happen for common queries, because the lack of any relevant results for that phrase is part of why a Googlebomb can work...
So part or all of what they did was to look at tightening that up.
It must be to do with a page getting too many links, too quickly, with exactly the same anchor text, and not having that text on the targeted webpage.
I think an important aspect missing from that statement is that this tweak might be specific for uncommon phrases that don't normally have a relevant result.
An open question is whether it will have an effect on competitive phrases.
