Danny Sullivan to Google: Make penalties public

[EditorialGuy]

In a post titled "Open Letter: Why Search Engine Land Will & Won't Cover Someone Being Penalized by Google," Danny Sullivan offers this intriguing call to action:

"Google: You need to publicly report if you’ve hit a site with a penalty....Why shouldn’t searchers and consumers know if a particular publisher has a bad record with you? Why shouldn’t regulators and others, who might be concerned you’re abusing your dominant power, be able to review actions easily?....Open up. Find a way so that people can definitively know if you’ve acted against a site or not." For the full text, scroll down the page at: [searchengineland.com...]

What do you think? Should Google go public with its manual penalties?

[ColourOfSpring]

A quick search on fiverr.com and I found half a dozen people offering negative SEO services with over 200,000 links offered for each of the services at $5.

Heck I can write a simple script that will autopost to a couple of thousand (or whatever) sites that use a particular forum template that allow for remote posting.

[TyMax]

What do you think? Should Google go public with its manual penalties?

Absolutely since Google seems to have moved into the Twilight Zone it would be helpful to understand what and why they are seeking changes to websites so they rank better. Why not be transparent? I totally agree with Mr. Sullivan.

[Planet13]

"As I suggested earlier, Google could simply identify sites that comply with its Webmaster Guidelines. It wouldn't have to explicitly diss those that don't. "

Surely they will do this in the future, and surly it will cost us webmasters money to hang this bad of google approval up (whether on our own sites, or in the SERPs)..

Remember back when google shopping was free? They were able to monetize that (and quite rightly, in my opinion).

so if I were a betting man, it won't be long till things like google analytics and google "seal of approval" badges for websites (whether they appear on site or in google properties) require payment.

Really, if you were google, why WOULDN'T you do that?

[ohno]

Remember back when google shopping was free? They were able to monetize that (and quite rightly, in my opinion).

Yes, it was when there were a lot of good little sellers, choice. Now it's full of eBay. Their excuse at the time was making it paid would make the user experience better.

They tried to justfy that the data uploaded would be accurate. Only it still isn't with many of the links having tax or shipping added on. Of course you only find that out AFTER the click.

Then they started the "Google Trusted Stores" program in the USA. I wonder where that will head...

Edited to add.

They've got some stores in the UK on their pilot scheme. Personally after the Google Shopping debacle I wouldn't stick their badge in my waste bin let alone on my websites.

[mrengine]

A quick search on fiverr.com and I found half a dozen people offering negative SEO services with over 200,000 links offered for each of the services at $5.

I see it too. What is interesting is how many orders these fiverr sellers have in their queue. 31 negative seo orders are awaiting delivery under one account, 18 on another and 9 on yet another. TBH, I never really spent much time checking out how many people are ordering these services and was surprised to see this level of activity. The positive feedback left for these sellers would suggest that the services work.

[CaptainSalad2]

Defying even more logic the same company, fiverr and other "negative SEO companies", come up in the top "organic" results for searches like "hire negative seo". Have a play with some phrases its shocking!

It begs the question, why doesn't G spam team don’t take action and make searching to buy backlinks, or negative backlinks a little bit harder? The phrases "nip it in the bud" and "prevention is better than cure" come to mind...

[EditorialGuy]

A quick search on fiverr.com and I found half a dozen people offering negative SEO services with over 200,000 links offered for each of the services at $5.

I suspect that you get what you pay for, but in any case, are you suggesting that Google shouldn't be transparent about penalties because someone might be the victim of "negative SEO"?

It would seem to me that, if Joe Webmaster has been penalized for any reason, he has bigger worries than whether a searcher might become aware of a penalty for a page that's buried at the bottom of the SERPs.

[netmeg]

I'm pretty sure Google can spot a $5 link bomb from Fiverr by now.

[mrengine]

I'm pretty sure Google can spot a $5 link bomb from Fiverr by now.

Spotting cheap spam links is not the problem, but how Google deals with those. I've yet to see Google communicate anything specifically about unwanted link bombings/nseo in WMT. Most communications are heavy handed warnings that are followed by a significant drop in search positions.

It would seem to me that, if Joe Webmaster has been penalized for any reason, he has bigger worries than whether a searcher might become aware of a penalty for a page that's buried at the bottom of the SERPs.

When businesses advertise in print, TV and elsewhere it is quite common for their website traffic to increase from people researching that company. In these cases their pages may not be buried in the serps for company name queries, unless they have been penalized so badly that they are not even indexed.

[ColourOfSpring]

I suspect that you get what you pay for

Well, that's exactly it - people are getting what they pay for - cheap and toxic links.

[ColourOfSpring]

I'm pretty sure Google can spot a $5 link bomb from Fiverr by now.

Well, it's a given that they spot "bad links" because that's what they penalise sites for (rather than ignoring them). Do you really think Google care who built the links? They've openly said they don't care - you have to just keep an eye on things and disavow any links you don't want to associate yourself with.

edit: if Google can "spot" such "link bombs", why would they ignore those, but not ignore other linking methods? Are you suggesting there's a class of links that Google utterly ignores 100%? Interesting if so...

[CaptainSalad2]

I'm pretty sure Google can spot a $5 link bomb from Fiverr by now.

If that were true it would be a win win for spammers, you buy cheap links and they either..

1) Create a positive impact on rankings

2) Are ignored and create a neutral effect on rankings.

Nothing to lose, nothing to stop link buying!

However, if anyone is sure and wants to PM me their main website address ill happily pay for a couple of these link bombs and we can test the theory? My treat...

[ColourOfSpring]

If that were true it would be a win win for spammers, you buy cheap links and they either..

1) Create a positive impact on rankings

2) Are ignored and create a neutral effect on rankings

EXACTLY. This is the whole point (and problem) of Penguin - there is no such thing as a "neutral" dofollow link. - would be interested in netmeg's theory though that there are a class of dofollow links that Google ignore (harks back to pre-Penguin days!).

[netmeg]

Off topic for this thread.

[ColourOfSpring]

That's fine. I wonder if we can discuss this another thread? Without any sarcasm (or cynicism) whatsoever, I honestly think a lot of people would be interested in you expanding on your opinion about certain types of links being ignored by Google (in the era where seemingly Google ignores NO dofollow links).