News Source: http://www.emarketingperformance.com
Published: Nov 06, 2007 - 04:02 pm
Story Found By: theGypsy 1558 Days ago
Category: SEO
You have to have a listent to the MP3... around 5 minutes of your life...worth it though (didn’t Danny just way it was Google the Good today?.. I am soooo lost)
Ask Not what Google can do for you but What you can do for Google!
SNIPPET - I’m not a Google hater. In fact I have no real problems with Google other than the standard fare. I don’t always agree with what they do and they, at times, appear to be quite hypocritical. Many would simply chalk that up to big-business. But Google’s no Enron, at least not yet. My only real problem is that Google tends to talk out of both sides of its proverbial mouth, and expects the SEO community to take them at face value. But we really can’t anymore.
6 Comments
Comments
I brought that point up once with a Googler. He quickly pointed out that users don’t see the robots.txt protocol normally either, yet webmasters create and use them often. Not that I agree with it 100%, I’m just reporting what I heard.
Google lies? That is news to me! I am sure Danny is surprised as well..:)
Hey, thanks for the submit, Gypsy. Glad you liked the audio. This has been something that’s been bugging me for a while and I think is the crux of the issue on why some people have an issue with the whole nofollow thing.
@Stny - NP I always enjoy a good rant!! I have so far steered clear of much of the debate. I think for me, I was never under any illusion of ’Google the good’. I look at it as ’Google the indifferent’. They are a large corporation and in many ways, they act as such. Like many companies, they blaze some trails and do some good things. I am simply never suprised, at least not often, these days with anything that happens. I suppose, for the SEOer these days it should be - Live by the Google, Die by the Google (another play on words to keep yours company)Dave
Though I think Stony is stretching by calling it a "lie", he makes an indisputable point:"<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Google says that you shouldn’t make changes to your site solely for search engines. However, they are more than happy—neigh, they demand—that you make changes that fill in for their own algorithmic shortcomings."Dan Thies poked holes into Google’s "machine readable disclosure" argument. It doesn’t hold water. Nofollow for paid links should not be required. It would only be necessary if Google intends to penalize link sellers. However, there’s no reason to penalize anyone if Google could automatically detect/devalue 99% of all paid links (which it still can’t).In an ideal world, flash sites would have a chance to rank high in search results. In reality, technological limitation prevent that from happening. I doubt marketers fully grasp the complexities involved.As Google moves forward, it should aim to fully-realize its advice: "Build for users, not search engines." Today, 301 redirects, robots.txt, META robots are still needed. In the future, they may not be. We’re not there yet.</font>
Dejavuhttp://www.travelinasia.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=16