Sphinn - Google Bombs, Jew Watch News & the Hypocritical Linking Universe

53
Sphinn It!

Google Bombs, Jew Watch News & the Hypocritical Linking Universe

Went Hot: March 30, 2008 - 4:38 pm
Posted By: SpostareDuro 464 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchenginewatch.com)
Category: Google

Does Google allow some Google Bombs based on corporate PR agenda and diffuse the rest? How can Google possibly avoid the intertwined politics of some bombs? What exactly is the fine line between kosher link building, paid linking, good SEO and black hat Google bombs? How does Google’s taste, editorial discretion, or standardized algorithmic hooks affect their perception as to whether a pattern is “natural” or not?

16 Comments

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from planetc1 464 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

This is a touchy subject few may want to address but Marty has really done quite a job of putting the spotlight on this issue. The methods and results are not limited to religion, I've witnessed the same tactics applied to "hate" sites of another nature and they share similar rankings to those mentioned in Marty's post. Continued improvements in the works by Google will be well appreciated by many.

from aimClear 464 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@Michael: Thank you for the insight, Google is made up of humans who are stakholders. Humans are not perfect.

from eric55 462 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

"google bomb" is confusing as used here. Never heard of it used this way.

In Black Hat, common term "Google Bomb" means to build links in a way that will make your competitor drop mainly by submitting there sites to spammy pages full of viagra links and such. And to spam links at a very fasst level to these bad neighborhoods so it's unnatural.

This article is quite confusing I thought.

from aimClear 462 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

@eric55: Thank you for your comment. That's the point exactly! There is little difference between "Google Bombs" (however you describle them) & SEO. The difference is all in what Google describes as "natural," which can't help but be influenced by human factors.

from TinPig 461 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

@aimClear - Excellent article. I rarely hear SEOs so comfortably discuss the failings of the link-based Page Rank (and thus Relevancy) algorithms. It's really quite a delicate and tenuous position Google and the SEO industry are in right now. As you state so clearly, the current environment cannot be effectively managed by Google (or other search engines). Yet an entire industry (SEO) and the fate of tens of thousands of web sites would be adversely affected if the link-based strucuture was dropped or changed significantly.

from baiduyou 461 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Great article Marty.

from aimClear 461 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Search is a difficult problem. Search engines, like divorce laws, are imperfect solutions for impossible problems.

from mblumenthal 461 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

It is of interest to me that on the search "n***er" that there is not equivalent Google warning.
Mike

from TinPig 461 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

@mblumenthal - google probably added that warning for "jew" to explain the search results, which were clearly manipulated (like most search results these days). the difference, i think, is that "jew" on it's own doesn't carry nearly as much negative impact and so the fact that you might find objectionable content toward the top of the search results for "n***er" is not as un-expected.

google, or any search engine, cannot be expected to appologize for information it indexes and subsequently returns in search results that users find objectionable. there's simply too much of it out there. in cases where the system has obviously been gamed (the end to the means of all SEOs), it's not surprising that google would issue an appology - especially when the subject matter is sensitive.

from dannysullivan 461 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

I've edited the n word. I know no one means offense in using it, but I'm going to star it out anyway.

from aimClear 461 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@Danny: Mike makes a compelling point none-the-less...and thanks for the moderation.

from mblumenthal 461 days ago #

Votes: 2 | Vote:

+ -

@TinPig
Why would an apology be more appropriate than a penalty, then?
Mike

from aimClear 461 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@Mike: Right. If ANY of us had orchestrated such an unnatural linking pattern on behalf of ANY site, we'd be like SO gone..and don't get me wrong-JewWatchNews grosses me out. For goodness sake, we have sites that lost multiple PR ticks for simple little paid links...I would think the Google-penalty for such an overt display sheer link-bombing prowess would be like having someone "drawn and quartered" or some such thing.

from TinPig 461 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

@mblumenthal - good point. i wasn't trying to imply that a penalty wasn't warrented in this situation and a penalty probably would have been a better response from google.

of course, this again highlights the complex nature of trying to police SEO activity. as it stands right now, page rank is clearly a popularity contest and has nothing to do with relevancy. and as such, content owners lobbying for votes in the contest are really only doing what would be expected. and so if i have the power of persuasion behind me and the gumption to go and out actively find votes, then why shouldn't i win?

from eric55 461 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

AimClear,

If some areas of the Web are no longer a WILD west, SEO ain't one of them. There are no "standards" but it is also interesting how we see terms like "Google bowling" and think we know what they mean, only to discover months later that others have different ideas.

from claires 453 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Its a tough one, i mean on one hand you don't want hate sites to receive any kind of extra exposure, but on the other hand... if Google BOMBS these, where does it stop. Anyone talking about China's issues in favour of Tibet?

It is a very good post and one that does not have a simple answer too