Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Of Disappearing Sex Blogs & Google Updates
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.
chrisek- 379 diggs
- digg it
- raz3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm sure most users of these sex blogs will still be able to find them easily. There will be fewer new users though. I, for one, didn't even know such "sex blogs" were prevalent enough to be grouped under a single umbrella term!
- anicejew, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1For the ones I read, I have them all bookmarked. That is the best way to find any sites you regularly visit. It still baffles me why people serach for URLs, eg. "www.yahoo.com" or "amazon.com" etc.
- alexmipego, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Come on... Blogging is so popular you can expect that there will be toilet-paper blogs under that exact "umbrella term".
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It'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 ***** up. - FartMitten, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0There is always and audience for sex, so they will never disappear.
Maybe blogging is starting to lose it's appeal...?
http://www.VeryLiberating.com - docdoak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Buried for having a stupid title starting with the word "Of" to try to sound intelligent.
- GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Apparently you're not familiar with umbrella term blogs which cover these intriguing trends.
- docdoak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh no, I'm familiar with them. They are just beyond stupid...
- compcaddy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0is http://www.My3Things.com considered a sex blog?
- anicejew, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Nope, it's considered a ripoff of postsecret
- darthdallas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0attaboy
- arjunm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3It's kinda silly, yes. People use google to go to arbitrary sites like cnn.com. My Dad trusts google on digging up everything. It's really kinda silly. Google is becoming synonimous with "Internet".
http://www.kamu.ch/blog -> For the sophisticated Geek - amboy00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No more photo blogs about hot+gay+soy? :-(
- Johnma22, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Freeleech On www.torrents4u.org JOIN N0W!!!
ITS FREE... - dgarallenpoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Behold the God like power of Google. They're always going to be shaking ***** up because ultimately they want dough for advertising. Fair enough, but few people seem to be willing to discuss how this undermines the quality of search results. Why would Google ever want organic results to be as relevant or more relevant than the sponsored links? Does anyone still think that Google is blazing a trail in search? What have they done lately to make search results better? Yes they were great and innovative circa 2000, but what have they done since? To me their most recent innovations are only about squeezing a buck. This recent shake up could have simply been a random event, but just as likely it could have been deliberate. The intent may have been to send minor shock waves through the community of businesses and organizations fortunate enough to be enjoying a free ride with Google. The implicit message: Don't get too comfortable.
As a small business owner, I despise the fact that Google so blatantly favors the big fish, but even so, if you're running a business, I don't care what size, the last thing you need is sudden surprises. If you had played Google's game and got good page rank, it would really suck to have you ranking go from top ten to nowheresville. Blatantly unfair.- ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Slob on my Knob
- drmitchell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Was I the first person to read this article in its entirety?
This is an SEO piece, i.e., a piece written by and for web masters who want to make sure that they're remaining relevant in Google's (and other search engines') page ranking. Obviously, Google did some tweaking over the last week, which makes sense since it's the holidays and Internet traffic drops (unless you're the iTunes music store). And that algorithm change effected some well-know sex site primarily because the owners of those sites weren't following good SEO practices.
I doubt (and so does the author of this article) that this was some Machiavellian attempt by Google to make people "pay for" page rankings through ad words. Google does do a good many Machiavellian things (who in corporate america doesn't?) and they certainly aren't as innovative as they were six years ago (who is? (and don't tell me that talking MSN search lady is innovative)). But this hardly qualifies as a red flag warning for people to stay clear of Google.
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.
My two cents.- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I 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.
- dgarallenpoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The 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.
- MyKindaSpam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know why Google still claims that they aren't "evil." I'm not saying they're evil; I think it is a little hyperbolic to declare corporations "evil," but any business that dramatically declare itself *not* evil, leaves itself open to greater scrutiny and mocking. Google News has been censoring and removing conservative or pro-Israel sites by calling them, in many cases, "hate speech," usually for making negative statements about Muslim groups, including known terrorist groups, while including sites that support terrorist organizations, terrorists or *actual* hate groups operating in the open like neo-Nazis are not censored and have been allowed. Any business has the right to include or exclude any client they wish, except, of course, for those protected by law, but Google is held to a higher standard because of their claims and importance. They dominate 57% of the current market, with greater numbers in certain demographics. That means they control much of what most people see for news and even general information when using the search engine. They don't make their full list of news sources public and they won't explain how they choose. They need greater transparency, which they refuse. Without any transparency, or even a real way to question these problems, there is no outside oversight, including citizen oversight, and they have no means of meaningful recourse to dispute discuss anything. I'm sure there are many people who disagree with the content on these conservative sites and think it is good that they are censored or excluded from Google News. This kind of capricious, whimsical and possibly ideological selection means that what YOU write or an issue that YOU believe in may be branded "hate speech" and banned when they are pressured.
There are current and proposed laws in Europe, Canada and Australia that include religions as a protected class in hate speech laws. Islamic groups say that speech that vilifies Islam or even criticizes or portrays Islam negatively is hate speech. A law that restricts criticism of Islam will restrict criticism of Christianity. If saying "intolerant" things about certain Muslims or groups is hate speech, then so can be saying "intolerant" things about certain Christians or groups. A Denmark court stated that an email listserv of 47 people was enough to convict a man for speech that contained degrading and insulting statements about Muslims--not speech that incited violence, but speech that was insulting. What happens when these laws and policies are extended to Christians? How many people here have made intolerant remarks about conservative Christians that can be labeled "hate speech" under laws and policies like this? How many websites that people visit say insulting things about Christians that insults or degrades them. If Google follows some examples of legal precedent and their own previous actions, those too can be "hate speech." - infowar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1GOOGLE IS EVIL...who makes them the boss about whats good for users and whats not?
- Parasocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This was just up the other day, and I'm right in the middle of it, my popular adult website has gotten trashed by google this year. It started in the summer, when we lost 85% of our Google traffic in one day, for no apparent reason, I still don't understand. It's very frustrating, but I don't think Google is being evil either. What irks me is that most people would assume we lost a big term, like "sex" or "free porn" or something, but the truth is that my adult website casts a large net, we didn't have any big traffic producing keywords. But our 1,300 articles provide a lot of 2, 3, and 9 word combinations (you'd be surprised!) that we got a good deal of traffic, for 5 straight years with no hiccups.
The affect on my business was harsh. To a retail store on the street, this would be the equivalent of losing the paved road outside, or perhaps a new better highway that goes somewhere else. It's really killing us. THEN, on Christmas Eve this year, for a day we were completely DE-LISTED.. Wow. We are linked from some of the best adult websites in the world! One of the these sex blog sites in question Eros Blog is one of our link partners. DDGirls, Simon Scans, Abby Winters, Matt's Models, Sapphic Erotica, MC Nudes, 1By-Day, Explicite, Teenrotica, Video Box and many more link to us directly from their tours. We're also mentioned on many others, including several years on the tour of Jenna Jameson's website, Met-Art, Suze Randall, etc, etc. I also think we have one of the best looking adult websites around! It is http://www.AdultSiteSurfer.com or ASS as we like to call it, for those interested. It's obviously 18+ NSFW :)
Anyways my point, from this perspective, is that Google needs to take a better look at how they rank adult websites. It's very rare for an adult website that isn't Literotica or Scarleteen to get a pagerank of higher than about 5 the odd 6. So we're always competing with spammy one page no-content sites that seem to always make the front page. I'm not sure what more to do to impress Google, following their own rules. 5 solid years online and thousands of high quality in bound links, a great useful website with no garbage or deceit, well written articles, and honestly we don't even do any SEO tricks. We just write for the users, follow basic logic that google suggests to webmasters. Add to that, G loved us for the first 4 years! But good luck getting someone from google to examine a specific situation.
If you want to take pity on me and help, please add us to your del.icio.us (which has been a great source of traffic by the way) and if you maybe know a bit about google and why this might have happened to us, let me know huh? :P - bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1did someone say dissappearing sex blogs?
http://www.joyscape.com/weblogs.php - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> 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.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by