Published: Mar 18, 2008 - 02:44 am
Story Found By: DazzlinDonna 1417 Days ago
Category: SEM
45 Comments
45 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
There goes my little bubble of happiness.On the plus side, maybe all of the obnoxious "social media experts" will shut the hell up finally.If something works.... TELL THE WHOLE WORLD! Itll just keep working forever and ever and ever... Googles full of idiots. Yayyyyyyyyyyy!
What?! They tell us to write good content, we do that and they penalize us? Hope this is not true or I will become a full-time Google hater.
In the article the update now says that it looks like they pulled the original story, and that this probably wasnt something they wanted to be public knowledge.Of course, if I were making ass-backwards decisions like that, I probably wouldnt want them published either.
so exactly how are they going to figure out who owns what site and marry that with social dataI have some ideas but none of them put big G in a positive light
so exactly how are they going to figure out who owns what site and marry that with social dataHm, actually my take on it was that they were going to penalize sites that gained unbalanced benefit from Digg, not site owners who also happened to be members of Digg... the opening line was this:According to the Google Blog, a spokesman for the search giant has hinted at a new strategy to reduce the page-rank of sites linked from social bookmarking site Digg.
@mvandemar - I read the same as graywolf about them targeting specific users and have a few thoughts on how theyll do it, too. Im more curious though about the impact one to three iterations deep of social submissions on non-major sites."we will be targetting mainly a small minority of prolific bookmarkers with a new algorithm that looks at linking patterns over time."
easist way would be to use toolbar data. They know what the admin panels URLs are for most blog platforms, they also know when you login to digg and other places, and could easily marry those pieces of data, and only throw out the odd baby with the bathwater here and there.Also looking at digg URLs that are sent through gmail would be another clueand then there google anaylitics which recently went more big brother on us
Hm, looking through the summary of their Privacy Policy, I really dont see anything indicating that they say they would be above doing just that... its all worded very carefully, as to allow just that kind of behavior pretty much any way they feel like it:http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy.htmlAlso it seems like this, similar to the paid links situation, would possibly be one more venue that could be used to harm a competitors website.
So Google finds a blog selling a link for $25 and that is such a threat to their system they remove its PageRank? People find loopholes like W3 selling links for the donors and Matt rolls in and says those links have been devalued since around 1976? and now we are supposed to believe that its going to take a year for them to figure out how to devalue links from social media? Id think they could do that with a click of a radio button.The whole story reads like its from The Onion or something, when would you ever hear someone from Google saying that they thought they made an error? At most it would be a bad data push. The whole concept of Google is based on popularity, they never claimed to offer the most relevant results or else the supplemental index would not have existed, only the most popular. Google doesnt discover data they just report on the already popular, and social media sites like digg are the wet dream of popularity for the digital age.I also find it quite odd that with 603,000 subscribers no scrapers picked this up before Google pulled it and no other blogger mentioned a word of the quoted story.Googler Jeff Waltz has also been keeping quite a low profile in the online world until this first blogpost. Seems quite suspicious in the least.
Nice find Donna ... I think Googles ultimate goal is to create such fear around the whole idea of links, that most are afraid to even think about links.
Did anyone here read the alleged post on the Google blog?
I just dont get this, you are allowed to submit your own stuff to most social bookmarking sites including digg, devaluing links to sites that constantly submit their own stuff would be one thing, but penalizing the websites of site owners that do it sounds extreme. I dont see it as being a major problem; non disclosed paid posts and paid links own the top money phrases on Google UK. Digg etc. doesnt even come into it. Digg are pretty swift in banning most e-commerce sites that get submitted anyway. Non e-commerce site or sites that sell advertising dont really care about Pagerank, they are in it for the traffic.
Which post is this in?I see only this on a global search of a snippet; http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Webmasters+who+rely+heavily+on+bookmarking+their+own+sites+to+gain+traffic+will+likely+see+a+drop+in+pagerank+before+the+end+of+2008%22+site:startupearth.com&hl=en&newwindow=1&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enCA238CA238&filter=0and nada searching the G/Blog; http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enCA238CA238&q=%22We+are+working+on+strategies+to+level+the+playing+field%2c+effectively+bringing+back+natural+search+patterns+enjoyed%22+site:googleresearch%2eblogspot%2ecomWhere is the source? Anyone?Is this verifyable?
@johnweb agreed looks like we did a lot of the same searches trying to verify the story, it was late so I gave up because I was tired ;-)I think the question here is why wouldn/couldnt google take steps like this? They are smart enough to know they pushed people into the viral space so its only natural gaming will take place. So are you thinking ahead of the algo trying to protect yourself from future fallout?
I built my own Google fallout shelter. Its buried 300 yards deep in Utah.
How Google can do so...I mean if a site has good content and its owner submits it into Digg or whatever... What Google has to do with its pagerank... Instead of that ..it will be better if Google update its Algorithem.
@johnweb youre right in that page rank is nothing more than a popularity contest at this point, and one where you can buy your friends or make cardboard cutouts of friends and pretend theyre real friends and sometimes google will believe you. the problem is that google DOES use this popularity to influence their concept of relevancy and once you weed out the basics of SEO, page rank is all thats left. popularity != relevancy, pure and simple. google needs to either abandon the link-based page rank algorithm or stop using page rank to inform search results. isnt kinda obvious its not working based solely on how much effort google puts into trying to weed out the spammers?
Does this mean social media is not a Golden Egg? LOL@Rhae Awesome!"On the plus side, maybe all of the obnoxious "social media experts" will shut the hell up finally."
I want to see the original article dammit! Sounds a bit dubious, on what the methods will be to tackle this though. Is this starting to mean that any type of paid links are bad? I have paid links that use the nofollow attribute so Im guessing theyre fine, right!?
Ive just had a good think about this and I am going to call BS. Wise up sphinners this is linkbait.
and i thought matt cutts said that linkbaiting was whitehat and totally OK.sheesh...theres no longer anything you can do. if you market your website a bit, youre just plain old a bad person, according to Google !
He doesnt want self-submissions perhaps. Id look at that little social profile API thing they had awhile back if you want to see how theyre probably going to detect this
>Ive just had a good think about this and I am going to call BS. Wise up sphinners this is linkbait.I agree its very probable its BS, but what you really need to think about is would google want to do this to negate the gaming we all know happens. If so how would they do it? How should you start mopping up your dirty footprints so you dont get caught ...
http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/644d43e62840ed88/3526b8e4a69dbf1e?lnk=raotJohnMu: "I would not worry too much about a blog post that doesnt seem to exist."He continues: "keep in mind that PageRank is roughly based on the quantity and quality of the links pointing to a page. Traffic from self-created bookmarks does not really play a role in that, at least not directly"And it doesnt play a role because with or without nofollow, Google IMO algorithmically nofollows links from social bookmark sites because theyre UGL (user-generated links), similar to how nofollow on Wikipedia didnt matter to Google, because those links were already dealt with.And who the hell is Jeff Waltz? Where does that name come from?Finally, how do you exactly "punish PageRank"? I thought the spammers are the ones asking to get spanked.And Graywolf, for a guy who believes webmasters should not live in fear of the big ol G, you sure have a lot of conspiracy theories under your sleeve :)
"Where is the source? Anyone?Is this verifyable?"JohnMu was polite; I call fake story. I subscribe to the Google Research blog and never saw that story appear in my Reader feeds. Plus the Google Research blog talks about research, not webspam. Theres not even a Googler named Jeff Waltz as far as I can tell.I think "Startup Earth" has some splaining to do. :)
"some splainin to do"...On this, and I think quite a few more stories Matt. Im also suspicious of the "Doubleclick" story at: http://sphinn.com/story/35225
Matt, I did some searching, it seems there is a Jeff Waltz at Google (see link) - looks like the story could be true, although Ive no idea what his position is.http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2007/10/google-education-summit.html
"it seems there is a Jeff Waltz"No, it seems there is a Jeff Walz, not Waltz. Walz title is director of university relations - what does that have to do with search quality and spam control?
Interesting, if only the url on SUE was to the specific post (assuming there was one), wed be able to tell if it had been there.I guess we have to stay tuned. :)~ Mike
Ahh, my first desphinn and I feel Ive done a good deed :)
This might be horribly offtopic, but is Sphinn a lot slower today than usually?
Penalizing the websites of site owners submitted their content in sites like digg, really sounds extreme. It would be better if the startupearth.com come with a better explanation on their post.
This is a pretty controversial post.. But if ever this is true then spammers have to say goodbye to their pageranks..
<div id="nameplate"> <h1 id="name">Jeff Walz could be the Googler. Hope this is his Linkdin Profile Page</h1> </div>http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/71B/B37
Calm down guys, you are about to...Dude, nobody is "about" to do anything... youre replying to a story that had its last comment 98 days ago. This is way old.
Despite the original article being over 101 days old now, the topic is still something which affects people today. I agree with Chris on the "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater" just because people have the urge for making some kneejerk reaction. Years ago I was told by one of my bosses "Learn the rules well, then use these peoples own rules against them!". That was sound advice and it works for this as well. If people would take the time to learn about the way things are, then they can find ways to utilize those rules or methods in their favor. Dont get mad, dont get even... Get Ahead! It may take time and a little work, but it is often most gratifying to beat people at their own game. Now I dont know exactly how many people actually did something other than gripe, nor do I know how many have put off doing anything until later. I wont even make a conjecture on how many new people will see this article and decide to act... my crystal ball quit working months. I would not be surprised to find out that anywhere from about 50% to 80% of all Digg Users do not have a blog or site to promote. Their whole reason for being on Digg is to post things which really does nothing for them except to get Diggs. My hunch about this mostly stems from the number of people who seem so against a person posting their own content. Almost any Blogger or Site Owner should see Digg as a great tool to be used to get them noticed. Their ought to be a huge fuss raised over the possibility of being penalized for publishing their own content. There isnt, and that tells me that either most people have nothing to promote.. or they are idiots who dont understand what things like Social Bookmarking sites can do for them. Now dont confuse this with those who preach that you can be penalized, so dont shout your own stuff. Some of these people may really agree that Digg, or other social bookmarking sites, should be used as a useful tool where you should be able to shout your own stuff... but they are realists and know that if you do then you could get penalized by the search engines. In other words they know that, despite how they really feel, you have to play by the rules of the game in order to succeed. So this takes us right back to the idea of "Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and Learning the rules to use them against them.
I am not buying this story unless there is some verification.
This story is a fake; Google never said anything like the source claims.
Im desphinning this post though at this point a desphinn would be an empty gesture than anything else.
Almost fell for this one. Its late at night and I had time to research the quote before sphinning :)
Ill believe cutts on this one. This has gotta be a Fake.
False linkbait. More characters for 50 limit.False linkbait. More characters for 50 limit.
This story has proven to be a fake..and I know this because I have once again bought into what someone else claims as fact. (go figure)
desphinning since it now appears this was a fake story.
I guess liars enjoy upsetting us a bit. Glad Matt Cutts clarified.