digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Google & Control - Four Reasons it is getting too far

techsoapbox.com — As in most things in life, there is black, there is white, and there is a ton of gray in between. Matt’s previous post on hidden links was quite slam-dunk, But the recent post on reporting paid links really ground my bones. Here are 4 reasons, in the eye's of one blogger, that outline why Matt Cutts' call-to-action goes too far.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 16, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

41 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Re-read the article, this isn't a "google-hater" piece...It's very even handed and brings up some interesting questions (albeit, somewhat minutiae) from a webmaster perspective
  • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13As someone who uses the Google AdWords (you pay to have them host ads) and also Google AdSense (they pay you to put ads on your site), I can say that this is such a non issue. I'd rather have some random blogger get pissed off that his CTR is going down by 0.05% than me losing the money I put into AdWords by having people scam Google.

    The AdWords publisher in me says "good".
    The AdSense publisher in me says "don't mind".

    I therefore think it's good what they're doing.
  • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6But, why should I get BMW in the results if I'm looking for recipe for grilled cheese sandwiches?

    Why should I get a site like dojo.org in any search result? whether the dojo toolkit or a dojo to practice karate. It is just search result pollution.
  • geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@AhmedF

    Google has gone off the deep end about this "report a paid backlink to us" BS. I could not agree more that they are presenting webmasters with more problems then they'll ever be able or willing to deal with, considering you can get reported for merely the *suspicion* that paid backlinks are used on your site now.

    There is another excellent article floating around Digg today about the same issue that seemed to stall about the time Matt Cutts left a reply to the submitter of that story. It delves into the problems inherent in Google's new policy in much greater detail. I'm about three seconds away from Digging that one...sorry :)
  • HairyPoter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I agree, Goooooogle is transforming into Greeeeeeeeeedy

  • spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I appreciate your trying to add to the conversation, skeeve, and I am not trying to flame you or Roberto, but this post has little, if anything to do with using Google from the perspective of an end user, but that of a webmaster/blogger. This author of the post is not *using* Google, Google is spidering his site, and someone, anyone, out there could report him or any other blogger for that matter, for spamming "paid links" that are in fact innocent links.

    In digg parlance, there is a "bury brigade" danger here, that could effect Google's SER and bloggers standing within them.

    There's actually even more (broadly) raised than this, but my point is that, **We're not talking about end users whining about Google, were talking about Google's approach to dealing with bloggers!**

    /this has nothing to do with "hating starbucks" or big corporations, therefore the points don't pertain to this topic ;-P
  • crumpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually, it's a little more than online poker sites. It's every mom and pop blog that downloads the new Wordpress rage, the sponsored link theme see: http://buzzdroid.com/seo/googles-newest-worst-idea-ever/
  • klown256, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Having thousands of those side board links pointing to a site does increase the side board link's PR however. One reason people create tools is so there is a little link underneath that tool pointing to their site..
  • dennisbier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Indeed people will go wherever the money is. Google is no different. In fact, the only thing that sets Google apart is its sheer power. The company basically knows EVERYTHING about you, which is worth a lot more than the money earned on a one time sale...http://weekendeconomist.blogspot.com/2007/03/52-google-is-your-friend.html
  • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ummm - you totally missed my point. When you install WP, those links come with the default installation. Quite a few people never remove the links (laziness, don't know how, etc). So those links aren't really 'natural', but they aren't really paid - how should they be dealt with?
  • str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3II can understand why they dislike paid links, because it undermines their whole algorithm. But at the same time I think they're playing a little too hard. As it was mentioned, they definitely favour the corporate entity over individual sites and one only needs to look at Digg to see this, Digg is allowed to customize their google ads with css roll overs and the likes, whereas other smaller sites will never receive this ability.

    Nonetheless, if you're an advertiser there's no point in sticking with Google as you lose out on fake clicks most of the time. I'd recommend using Adbrite or Conterra or something like that because they're less likely to have click fraud cases. Everyone just seems to think that Google is the end all be all of search and advertising.
  • Munzir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6http://www.techsoapbox.com/a-quick-clarification-we-vs-we/ - he seems to be more than just a random blogger
  • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Google is now trying to dictate what we can and cannot do. "
    I call B.S. Google can't dictate anything to anybody. They run a search engine for crying out loud.
    As for crying over paid links, well, "boohoo". Paid links only exist to attempt to game the search engines.

    Maybe if people put more effort toward making good sites with useful information and spent less time worrying about trying to play with search engines, the web would be a better place.
  • geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Gahhhh, the author doesn't understand PageRank at all. I was with him until #4, about pre-filled links on his WP blogroll. Those could be to the highest PR sites on the Web--Google, StatCounter, SiteMeter, it doesn't matter--those links alone won't increase his site's PR.

    Google's algorithms weigh links against factors such as location within the page (sidebar link verses body text link) and weigh any backlinks from the website linked to. It's much more complex and the factors are weighed much more carefully than he suggests.

    Try it. Have a blog with no or few high PR backlinks and try to compensate for it by linking directly to WP, The Washington Post, CNN, Google, whomever. The blog won't rank any higher for having those links. If it was that easy we'd all do that and forget getting backlinks from other sites that actually noticed our blogs.

    You could throw a link to God Himself in the sidebar, but if He won't link back to you, you're wasting your time.
  • Kamino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think this is a dumb move. By announcing this pilot 'detection mechanism' link exchanges will become an underground thing. For instance, Mediatemple is linked on many web 2.0 blogs. I don't doubt the people who are doing this are getting something back for that, be it in the form of a discount or simply money. If this "detection mechanism" will only do a regex around "paid links", "sponsored links" and scan links text-link-ads I am afraid they will do more harm than good. Link exchanges will take place in shady dark alleys and there will be no way to control it.
  • Parrotheader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's not surprising, but nevertheless ironic that Google's greatest strength (its revolutionary search algorithm which heavily leverages linking as an indicator to relevance) is also its biggest weakness. And it is sort of hypocritical to essentially tell webmasters exactly how you'd like to see them selling advertising on their sites when Google's financial success is predicated on the sale of advertising (and also has a model for distributing ads on your site.) No site has to 'use' Google. But obviously their voice carries a ton of weight and I wonder if that's why this suggestion came out through Matt's own blog rather than one of the more 'official' Google channels.

    Relying on users to report what they perceive to be spam is just asking for trouble. I realize that's even more ironic on a site like Digg where the users themselves effectively vote on the content they find interesting. But a major search engine's ranking algorithm should be much more fluid and able to normalize the fluctuations that come when user-interaction can directly exclude something from the equation. We've all seen the mob mentality that comes from fanboys, etc. at Digg here on full display. On Digg and similar sites I've gotten used to it as it can be entertaining. But I expect a major search engine like Google to stand above that fray. Indeed, the nebulous distance with which Google seems to hold itself from the individual user is one of its strongest selling points IMO. It might not be as personable as some other sites, but that's part of the reason people trust.
  • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@geek - I have no clue what you are talking about.

    This is about Google claiming they want to ban paid links. I mentioned pre-filled links - I never asked for them, but they come default with Wordpress. A lot of users have left these links up. They are definitely not organic - the users did *not* intentionally add them.

    So how is Google going to treat them? Are they to be considered bad because the user never added them? They definitely aren't organic, and they aren't relevant to 99% of the blogs they are linked from.

    I never claimed it increases *my* PR. It does increase them, in a non-organic way.
  • chenkersthecat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To quote uncle chop-chop (for all you Aussies out there), "Whinge, whinge, ***** whinge"
  • ketan9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This will hurt new sites in a big way and still the corporate sites will keep on doing well! Not a good move, I would say.
  • onezero2000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3People are way too into SEO, how about just building a good, accessible site, building a network of quality sites that link to yours, having people answer questions about topics concerning your company on Yahoo! answers, posting on message boards, etc... Where are the White Hat SEO's, why is everyone trying to turn a quick buck. It really shouldn't matter if Google changes Adsense, they are a company that is supposed to make money, why should they care about the blog that puts adsense on it? As long as the blogger is making a little money, and Google is making a lot, everything is operating as expected. Anybody who builds their whole site for Adsense is already in Black Hat SEO land anyway.
  • UsingDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Way better than paid links: Long Tail Titles + Content
    http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-Optimization-Help/12-More-SEO-Tips-for-2007/1/
  • jester55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1whats a paid link?
  • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It is simplistic to say 'go use something else'.

    Google controls the majority of search (seen from an Anglo-perspective). I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, but reality can suck.

    With that in mind, we have to play by their rules to a certain extent. And my problem is the simplistic approach (all paid links are bad) to something very complex. Hell, Yahoo! sells paid-links from their directory - what should we do about that?
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wouldn't say it is bad writing, but the author shows some confused but well-based articles. That's why i understood his main ideas and that's why i don't agree with him.

    Anyway, the author has shown his point and i may say it's pretty well justified.
  • clf99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1people are over-reacting to the 'paid links' comment. knowing the a link is paid doesn't necessarily mean your PR will go down. It could depend
    and it could be useful data into the Google algorithms. It might be in some cases that paying for things denotes legitimacy, a real company with
    real revenue and means a higher PR.
  • raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So someone is upset that their online poker site can't sneak up to the top of Google search results for "digg"?

    Sorry, but I'm really not buying this.

    Boohoo, you can't game the system.

    This is like being upset that you can't exploit an Windows bug to login to your home computer.
  • langdee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1>>> The Answer is Simple People FOLLOW THE MONEY
  • klown256, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2While there are quite a few people miffed over this I could care less. As an adwords advertiser I don't use content ads anyhow because of their low conversion rate, and as a webmaster its fine as it will only affect my competition.
  • geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@klown256

    Well of course I wasn't taking that side of it into consideration and of course you are right. Such backlinks benefit the owner of the website, widget, or plug-in immensely if they are on a high PR site and/or as they increase across the Web.

    I was merely focusing on the sort of links he mentioned: pre-installed blogroll links, which he cites for their possibly high PR. Building on that I threw in links that might have similar high PR such as Google, et al and built them into my argument that having them won't increase PR for him, but yes, they will help the websites backlinked to gain PR any day of the week.

    *Unless* of course, all (or most) of the backlinks to that website/plugin/widget are garbage. In that case those sites will never gain significant PR and might actually wind up penalized by Google and/or other search engines depending on how concerted of an effort went into gaining those backlinks in the first place.

    I'm presenting very simplified views of these scenarios for the fact that this is Digg...it's not exactly WebMasterWorld, you know.
  • theungeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think you're oversimplifying things. I like Google, generally speaking, I trust their business ethics and I enjoy their products. I hate Starbucks, Starbucks makes a substandard product, and while they have great benefits for *full time* employees, go and ask a few of their employees how hard it is to get hired on full time. In both cases, my position on them has everything to do with my experience of them as a customer and a business person. Not everyone makes their decisions based on popularity.
  • cosequin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2to beat out the big boys and target the long tail, use hittail - http://www.hittail.com/

    I've been using it happily for a month.

    It really CAN increase your traffic in small steps, just see their demo,
    http://www.hittail.com/demo/
  • topnotchnet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4i cant wait for the day everybody has adblock installed and this pyramid scheme ends
    eyeballs are not money, it is the same as spam as far as im concerned, the few idiots that do click on them far outweighs those that don't
    its the first thing I install on all the pcs i build or fix
  • ShyGuy91284, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Double standard for banning? It's called providing what the users want. If I search for a common name like BMW and get every site but BMW's site, that's a pretty big disservice to me, the customer. Sure, BMW had done bad and should be punished, but banning them too would be as much of a pain for the consumer.
  • themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Google has begun censoring its competitors like www.liveleak.com without any word as to why.
  • ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"in the eye's of one blogger"

    idiot.
  • skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The author of the article may not be a "google hater" in the sense that he mindlessly bashes google. But Roberto's point is still valid. Nobody forces you to use google. Google is in almost every respect an excellent and admirable company. While they certaintly have a controlling interest in the "market" (if you consider search engines a market), they by no means use it to force out other companies like yahoo (unlike certain other "soft" companies, go ahead flame me). If they change their policy in any way that displeases you and is not illegal, your only course of action is to not use them. But you do, because the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Nobody's perfect, but there is much, much, much worse out there.
  • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"It's every mom and pop blog..."

    do you really think people are going to waste their time reporting "mom and pop blogs"?
  • roberto_deneero, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Bury this story for complete lameness.

    Google haters are like Starbucks haters. They talk before they think for themselves. Starbucks provides a great service to customers while providing great working conditions and benefits to part-time employees. Google provides great services to those who choose on their own volition to use Google while providing their employees great working conditions and perks. Nobody is forced to use Google. The reason so many people do use their services is because they're great in the eyes of the users.

    Bla bla bla. Just shut up already.
  • skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Anybody using a generic website builder, without any idea of how to actually manage a web page and make it do what they want doesn't deserve to whine about their search results. As the author said, these ads are generated by default and some people are too lazy, or don't know how to get rid of them... Yeah if you can't be bothered to figure that out then tough luck. That's like saying you built a car and didn't bother/didn't know how to make it street legal. So why should you be fined for driving something with no mirrors, speedometer or lights?
  • skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@willcode: it's called contextual searching. If people searching for "grilled cheese sandwiches" frequently end up going to BMW, then BMW should be in the results. It's all about what the people want to see. What you search for and what you get should only be related in this way. Otherwise, your relying on some arbitrary official to decide how relevant your search results are. I'd much rather have 30 million people tell me what I should see when I search for "grilled cheese sandwiches" than Bob Johnson in accounting telling me.
  • everybod, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1To sum up the post (which I agree with) - "***** Matt Cutts."

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.