Comments
11 CommentsYeah yeah, blah blah about the page rank drops. It sucks, I know. My problem is a bigger one. It's a cold day in hell before I jump through hoops for Google.
If they can make this complicated algorithm to calculate page rank and they can follow no-follow links, then they can ignore links coded as advertising or sponsorship. Seriously, if I have a header tag with Sponsors or Advertisements on my site I'm not going to put content there. Maybe I'm am making things very simple but with all the money they have why can’t they follow this:
<!-- Begin Sponsors -->
<!--End Sponsors -->
That solves the problem for those that want to be honest, have text links on their site but don't have to worry about the "you are not allowed to change the ad code" problem. People selling links or want advertising on their site can do so, it's transparent and Google can do whatever they want to with the links between those lines. Penalize those that are abusing the system, like not properly marking ads in the code. Not links, ads.
But now Google is trying define what relevant is. Sure, I get the need to want to display quality links as resources for their search engine but since when does one company make a call that has people jumping through hoops? People took down their advertising so they would avoid the Google hammer and they got it anyway. Sorry, when I pay for hosting and I write on the blog I have the right to do whatever I want to with it. Don't get me wrong, my PR has been at zero because it is a new domain so I don't care personally but a lot of people were hit unnecessarily IMO. Will it eventually blow over? Probably because we are a forgiving bunch. People seem to forget Google would not exist without us.
Why was Engadget (WIN blogs) hit but not Gawker or TechCrunch? Because they are more cautious with their links? Wait...if it is because WIN has links to sites on their network, I'm sorry, that's so wrong. I can't count the times I clicked to another blog because the link interested me. They have a lot of articles and they link to those articles legitimately...I don't see where they are doing anything unethical.
Links are dictating what is determines quality content and I have a serious problem with that.
But are people who write paid entries being penalized? Doesn’t seem like it.
And there is a conflict of interest. They sell advertising, they aggregate content and I don’t see no-follow on their Adsense ads but of course they could always have their system ignore them. If they weren't in the same space perhaps I wouldn't have such a problem with their tactics. When Forbes is penalized just like John Chow, who is known for his antics, it’s wrong to me.
I’m going to do what I want how I want on my site. I hope everyone else does too.
Andrew
Written Oct. 24, 2007 / Report /
Totally understand where you're coming from on this one Tyme. It's becoming more and more clear that the Internet is being run by Google. You can't ignore google, you can't bypass it if you're in web business, your either with them or against them. I don't like it one little bit.
RightOn
Written Oct. 24, 2007 / Report /
I'm looking for alternate ad server services after my next check from Google. (I'm close to $100 so why dump RIGHT now)
Anyone know of any good ones that pay out well?
Oli
Written Oct. 24, 2007 / Report /
It's clear that this pagerank mix-up (and subsequent alterations to listings) is doing the users - the people actually looking for things - no favours but this is their game, their rankings, their rules.
If you have a ton of static outbound links plastered all over your website (no matter if they're paid or not), chances are they only have relevance to the site as a whole and not the content on any one page of that site. Those links (be those blog rolls, adverts or just plain static links) should be ignored. Fair enough.
I don't think this should come at a penalty though. It's my understanding (with my own anecdotal proof to back it up) that Google has the power to tell what parts of your mark-up represent the content and what represents the sidebar, footer, etc.
Part of me can see this as an evil glint in Google's commercial eye, as if to say: "We're losing advertising revenue to other advertisers here. Let's devalue it." as this is clearly in their interest. But if MS can get blown up for billions for bundling a browser and a media player, Google is going to get raped several times in a burning car by anti-anti-competition bodies.
sugarattack
Written Oct. 24, 2007 / Report /
"I’m going to do what I want how I want on my site. I hope everyone else does too."
Thats all you had to do in the first place.
But, that "Make Money with Text Link Ads" banner on the top of your page probably didn't help.
Tyme
Written Oct. 24, 2007 / Report /
@sugarattack: perhaps something was lost in translation but on my site, that's exactly what I did and like I said, my site had a PR of 0 because it's a new domain. This did not effect me personally.
I guess you're thinking about 9rules and Scrivs talked about that. Not going to be earth-shattering...we don't care about PR personally.
And ethically, what a convenient way to take out the competition? "We're trying to make our search results more relevant so please, trust us that our own Google ads are not favored in any way and no-follow yours, ignoring the fact that makes our product better, so we can have better search results. Because in the end, you should care more about our company and our search results than your own well-being and those of your employees. And if you don't do it, I'll punish you."
Sorry...Microsoft got a lot of crap for the things they did. Google is starting to have one hell of a monopoly and I think it's time it was addressed. Even playing field and all.
PR is used in ad negotiations for many companies, who have people depending on those salaries - and it's holiday season. For many it's going to be a tough sell explaining that much of a dip. Just because these changes don't really effect me doesn't mean I am not sympathetic to those that will be.
Under their theory, any link not related to the content so be ignored. So why not just ignore sidebars and footers all together? Only focus on the content in the entry.
limlom
Written Oct. 25, 2007 / Report /
"Sorry, when I pay for hosting and I write on the blog I have the right to do whatever I want to with it."
I haven't seen anyone, including Google, state the opposite.
The truth is no-one knows how or why the rankings have changed, so all this talk is hot air.
Perhaps a little more work on reverse-engineering their algorithm would be more productive at this time.
Google isn't obligated to anyone to support or maintain their PR and they can adjust their algorithm as they like. Every Google dance we get the same noise, just from different people.
There are other search engines, other valuations, other rankings. Just like the current state of measuring web-site visitors and page views this whole business needs to step up a gear and become more intelligent.
This really does look like the greeting of a child that doesn't understand how the real world can be so cruel.
shadowsun7
Written Oct. 25, 2007 / Report /
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google's business is much like 9rules: they want to find the best, most relevant content on the web and present it to audiences. The only difference is the method, and the sheer scale. This hiccup may be a thorn in the side, yes, but in the long run it probably won't matter. If Google is really true to their purpose of throwing up the best, most relevant content to search queries, things would eventually iron out and our blogs will return to their (rightful) places (at the top of the search results page).
I'm going to repeat a maxim seen and heard much around Notes: take care of the content, and everything else will follow. The only ones to fear would be the black hat SEOs, not us.
Because we provide quality.
Article19
Written Oct. 25, 2007 / Report /
Google's business is to make money and they use their market position to bully people into submission. Don't play by their rules and they will de-list you. One company wielding so much power is never a good idea, it's Tyme (ho ho ho) that someone dropped the hammer on them and broke up the company.
Andrew
Written Oct. 25, 2007 / Report /
Agreed. But it's going to have to be one big hammer or a huge series of feisty little ones to stop the google giant...
Although I suppose David did get lucky with Goliath right? But then again we all know that's just a myth humans like to rally round. In reality David would have taken a serious whooping.
Tyme
Written Oct. 25, 2007 / Report /
Ok, since you said to correct you...
If Google was really interested in only having the most relevant content, they wouldn't allow everyone in. Or start spidering sites without the person knowing they were being added.
At the very least they should have made a greater attempt to educate people. Look at their blog. Do you think anyone gives a rat's ass APIs, gadgets and tabs vs. their blog mysteriously dropping in the all-important *snort PR? It's Microsoft-type cockiness to me.
Google knows the odds of everyone working together and simply not using their service(s) won't happen - and that is the sad thing. We have the power to put Google it their place but we'd have to work together to do it.
shadowsun7
Written Oct. 26, 2007 / Report /
Eh? Google has always served as a content filter for people - to provide the most relevant links as a result of people's search queries. They index the web. They make it accessible to all of us.
How the above quote constitutes a counter argument to that is beyond me.
You seem to be painting Google in black tones just because they are big. Well, they are. But the comparisons to Microsoft are unnecessary:
1, you don't know why or how Google has modified its pageranking system. Seeing as they have a good track record of separating the wheat from the chaff in the past, I'd say this is just another one of their (mis)steps, as they improve their services.
2, Pagerank falls. So what? They did not force all their users to blog in Blogger; they did not bundle Google Docs and Spreadsheets into the homepage in the hope that that'll make Microsoft Word redundant (lol). In other words - they did nothing as atrocious as what Microsoft's done in the past.
3, Cockiness? Oh gosh that's a good one.
I shall write this off as a rant note, and pat you on the back. You of all people should know you write good stuff. That 9rules produces good stuff. Its pagerank will rise again as Google streamlines its ranking systems.