Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 60
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: February 15, 2008 - 3:30 pm
Posted By: JohnWeb 241 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://andybeard.eu)
Category: Google Other
He also details the interaction of his content with other traffic generating and delivering services out there besides Google.
16 Comments
Comments
If everybody did that, Google would have some problems.
Awesome! I'm going to have to look at doing that !
I think it's a great idea, I think you should all do it and rejoice. Don't worry about me, somehow I will struggle on with all the traffic Google sends.
Gutsy, interesting move. I'm curious to see how this all plays out.
Has Andy ever made public what % of his traffic comes from G?
Andy didn't actually leave Sphinn. He spins Sphinn :)
If I read the post right, Andy is not blocking Google from the whole website. He is only blocking Google's crawler to the paid review pages. That is one of the alternative methods to "no-follow" Google recommends.
Please check the changes he did to the robots.txt file.
I didn't comment when Andy left Sphinn, but now I feel the need to point out that Andy is kinda losing it (if he hasn't already).
Blocking Google is like wishing it'd be daylight for all 24 hours - it's not gonna be worth the time you spend wishing. It's not worthwhile, though it's certainly nice to wish.
@HamletBatista - if Andy is admitting to paid reviews then Google is right to penalize him, let alone him banning Google.
@Tim - No, actually, they're not. They are wrong to dictate what people can and cannot to earn money, period.
Coercion and bullying, regardless of however they want to spin it, is unethical, plain and simple. When they do it across state lines to control how people do business it also happens to be illegal, as a matter of fact.
They're fighting a losing battle with real spam, so they have to go after people like Andy, who does not in fact deserve any sort of penalty, in order to look like they are doing something about it for their stockholders.
It's a smoke screen.
I seriously dont understand what google is thinking.
They want to combat folks like Andy from doing paid posts, but they continue to offer paid search positioning using their adwords system.
Do they seriously think that they're allowed to dictate all the terms?
But, then again - We're all Google's slaves - Without Google, its kinda hard to survive in the internet marketplace.
So much for monopoly.
As Hamlet says, Andy is just blocking Google access to the paid reviews on his site. This allows to comply with Google's guidelines (as an alternative PR blocking method to nofollow). However he will be actively pushing these articles out via the syndication methods he describes in the article. By adding this extra layer of distribution he absolves himself from any editorial control. He expects this to bring him more traffic not less.
It sounds a great idea. I'm sure he'll do very well and if anything Google loses a little in relevancy.
What's he going to do next for an encore?
Shoot himself in the foot or sponsor a protest orgy to save virginity?
Just kidding...
In defense of Tim, Google can do whatever they want. If they want to penalize paid links or paid posts or whatever, it's completely within their rights. I can never get over how some people think that it's their god-given right to get traffic from Google (and to dictate how Google goes about implementing their search engine).
And for those of you who feel that you're a slave to Google, you need to rethink your business strategy. If the majority (or all) of your traffic comes from search engines, there's something wrong with your business model or you simply need to work on building your brand awareness.
"In defense of Tim, Google can do whatever they want."
@hugoguzman - actually, you should read up on the Sherman Antitrust Act. No company can actually "do whatever they want", thank God. Interstate and international companies are under strict guidlines in many areas of how they conduct business.