Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 38
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: April 18, 2008 - 4:09 am
Posted By: gyutae 179 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.wolf-howl.com)
Category: Google SEO
The selective an uneven application of justice and rule enforcement is one of my major problems with the big G.
11 Comments
Comments
I think the problem is that Google tries to apply a black-and-white policy to what is a shades-of-gray (no pun intended) problem. If they applied differential weighting rather than outright bans they and we would all have a much easier life.
In all honesty I think this is an example of how Micheal's lost it.
Ever since Google introduced quality scoring into Adwords, Micheal's posts have increasingly become bitter attacks on Google for the smallest and most irrelevant pre-text.
Can anyone see any keyword link bombing on the Oympic page? Are they doing anything other than providing a reference to corporate sponsors? Is the Olympic website really doing anything that is keenly targeted at leveraging SEO benefits?
Michael, you once offered potentially great insights, but now you're even more cynical than I am.
I try to keep cynicism rooted in form of realism - your cynicism looks like bitter revenge.
I'm sure it resonates well with anyone who loves Google-bashing for the sake of it, but I don't think it has any real place as a "news" item or serious discussion item - it's an attempt to take something out of context and feed a bitter agenda.
Desphunn.
@iBrian no problem I understand it's not everyone's thing.
IMHO though everyone needs to be aware of how google's policies are not only bizzare and harmful to the internet as whole, but serve Google's needs and not everyone elses. The fact that google doesnt apply justice in an even and consistent manner is again IMHO the acts like an unlimited sovereign.
I agree - I think your main argument that there is an unfair playing field is a very coherent one.
I just feel that with examples like the above, the debate becomes obfuscated from core concerns and distracts to potential trivialities.
Btw, my apologies for the personal comments - it was quite unfair to comment on the messenger, not the message. It's bad practice and I shouldn't have posted, and actually came in to edit it out. Kudos for holding your own in a respectful manner though.
I may not agree with some of the posts you've made, but you still hold the respect of myself, and of course, the industry. I guess that's why it's frustrating when it feels the direction of the argument seems to be going in a less than optimum direction.
2c.
@iBrian no worries mate I dont expect everybody to agree with me 100% of the time, I'd even say you're real friends are the one who disagree with you from time to time ;-)
I find myself agreeing with ibrian on this one, this isn't a paid link in its truest sense..
I think the challenge is: prove that they're paid links.
I'd say this is proof money was exchanged and a link was one of the results
http://www.usolympicteam.com/12953.htm
the real issue here is how google is completely arbitrary in how they handle these cases, there is a complete lack of consistancy.
For anyone outside to try and determine the motivation behind the event results to nothing more than a best guess.
@graywolf: yes, but it is an *earned* link through the companies donating significant funds to the Olympic Team. Not a "paid link", in that Hilton, Nike etc. have personally approached the site with cash in hand asking for links and optimised content. Looking at the huge spread of (unrelated) companies listed, there is no implied 'gaming of the system' at work. Thus, I think they are fair game and shouldn't be "devalued".
@neilY those companies donated cash, goods or services, and as a result of that donation they got a link. That link implementation doesn't fall within google guidelines, you cant have a system where you enforce the rules selectively, no matter how good the cause is.
The rules is the rules