searchengineland.com — Last week, Barry Schwartz reported there seemed to be a Google update going, based on forum activity he was seeing. Google's Matt Cutts quickly followed up with a short refresher on the difference between algorithm updates, data refreshes and index updates.
Dec 29, 2006 View in Crawl 4
headzooDec 30, 2006
It's irrelevant whether visitors to sex blogs will still be able to find them. What is relevant is Google de-listing/de-ranking sites, just because the folks at Google don't like the content, or because they want AdSense capable sites (Can't use AdSense on porn sites) to rank higher in searches. Thus sending more people to AdSense filled sites. Thus making more money.Today it's porn sites, tomorrow it's your site.BTW - I'm not saying Google *is* doing this, but if there are, it's pretty f**ked up.
scottmaximus1Dec 30, 2006
Slob on my Knob
headzooDec 30, 2006
I disagree. The article is written by someone with an SEO background, and views the world with SEO glasses. So of course the article has SEO written all over it. But I believe the author made it clear that he thinks something a little odd is going on with Google and adult sites. While he suggests ways that those sites could improve their rankings, he also suggests that optimization isn't enough. That it's possible Google is working against those sites no matter what they do.
dgarallenpoeDec 30, 2006
The point I was making is that relevant search results, i.e. organic search and sponsored links are inherently in conflict. This is a point seldom addressed by the minions of Google cheerleaders. The better the organic results are, the more they compete with the sponosred links. Why would Google want this since organic results don't keep the lights on? This is why search is stagnating, and probably one reason why Google has branched out in to other areas. Having established market dominace, they need be only as good as the competition or a little better, but not noticeably better. Ask yourself what really makes Google better than MSN or Yahoo for search. Very little. I personally think that the future of search can be glimpsed in sites like Digg. Algorithms are not very good at determing the true relevancy of content to a specific topic. People are much better at doing this.
infowarDec 30, 2006
GOOGLE IS EVIL...who makes them the boss about whats good for users and whats not?
Closed AccountDec 31, 2006
Oh no, I'm familiar with them. They are just beyond stupid...
bioskopeDec 31, 2006
did someone say dissappearing sex blogs?<a class="user" href="http://www.joyscape.com/weblogs.php">http://www.joyscape.com/weblogs.php</a>
dannysullivanDec 31, 2006
> Buried for having a stupid title starting with the word "Of" to try to sound intelligent.Yeah, sorry about that. I did think about doing the story as a series of numbered bullet points and giving it a title of 21 Ways Google Hurt Sex Blogs Built On Apple Computers In An Effort To Stop Global Warming & How Digg Buried It.Still, I'm glad you buried it for the stupid title. Goodness forbid you actual read the article and decided if it was intelligent :)> What it DOES qualify as is a good piece for any webmaster interested in trying increase his/her rankings on Google. Plus it points one in the direction of some good resources.Thanks! Much appreciated.