More Google Shenanigans: This Site May Be Compromised

[BritishARMY]

Big difference between visiting a site that may compromise your computer and visiting a site that may have used some shady SEO practices but that won't be easy for the average Google user to differentiate between.

If Google is smart enough to determine that a site shouldn't be ranking, why doesn't it just nuke it's ranks instead of lumping them in with spyware and the such?

I agree, surely Google would just rank the site lower (which it does anyway) rather than expose it as being unsafe to visit.

Wait... "... or spamming (violating search engine quality guidelines to rank pages more highly than they should rank)"

They say you may be put down for spam. Right, well anybody can spam a link to your site, bit unfair?

[benitez17]

Wait... "... or spamming (violating search engine quality guidelines to rank pages more highly than they should rank)"

They say you may be put down for spam. Right, well anybody can spam a link to your site, bit unfair?

Sure, but that's a problem with any attempt to limit the success of SEO tactics. I think they would apply the punishment to the sites selling the links in almost every instance, just like they do now.

[JJMcClure]

What would you call threatening to paint link sellers and buyers with the same brush as identity thieves in their SERPs?

I'd call it confusing, how does SEO come into this at all? I don't get their point there, how is 'spamming' the SERP the same as hacking?

As for them 'scaremongering' and being a 'bully', I just think that kind of language is deliberatly inflamatory, its the kind of tactics red tops use to spin a reaction. If Google are bullies for enforcing their own rules or trying to run their business their way then so about a zillion other people/companies etc etc and scaremongering is just too strong a word to use in this context, they're a search engine not a government or the brown shirts or something. Let's keep some perspective.

[benitez17]

I'd call it confusing, how does SEO come into this at all? I don't get their point there, how is 'spamming' the SERP the same as hacking?

As for them 'scaremongering' and being a 'bully', I just think that kind of language is deliberatly inflamatory, its the kind of tactics red tops use to spin a reaction. If Google are bullies for enforcing their own rules or trying to run their business their way then so about a zillion other people/companies etc etc and scaremongering is just too strong a word to use in this context, they're a search engine not a government or the brown shirts or something. Let's keep some perspective.

Buying and selling links isn't the same as attempting to commit a crime. Everyone (other than Google apparently) agrees on that. So then the question I ask is why would Google put sites owned by link sellers and buyers in the same group as sites being run by criminals? The only reason I can see is that they want to discourage that activity, and they see this as another tool they can use to keep site owners in line.

I agree that there are plenty of companies that use these tactics, but that doesn't excuse Google from trying to intimidate their smaller partners into acting as they want them to by taking advantage of Google's position of strength, when in reality they aren't able to enforce this policy across their SERPs. If that isn't bullying or scaremongering, what is it?

Finally, I think everyone is aware that we are talking about SERPs here, not life and death. That doesn't change what Google is trying to do any more than the fact that they are not alone when employing these less than honorable tactics.

[Clinton]

If Google is smart enough to determine that a site shouldn't be ranking, why doesn't it ../

Ah, that's because it ain't smart enough but would like the world to think it is.

[JJMcClure]

Buying and selling links isn't the same as attempting to commit a crime.

Buying and selling links reduces the quality of the SERP because it spams results that don't deserve to rank where they rank = Removed from the SERP.

I don't get why you're talking about sites run by criminals?

If that isn't bullying or scaremongering, what is it?

these less than honorable tactics

It's running a business, and a much more ethical business than most. I'd very much like to see more Googles and many less of the Shell, Esso, Nestle, McDonalds, KFC and Union Carbide etc etc type businesses.

Ah, that's because it ain't smart enough but would like the world to think it is.

Clinton mate, you've been had. It's all a huge double bluff, they (it? is Google an it? what about 'the mysterious they', that's a good one too) actually know exactly how to get rid of those sites but choose the appearance of not being able to, to to distract all the Google bashers while they secretly satellite track our every visit to the shops and buy up the worlds supply of electric cars ready for the environmentally friendly world domination takeover attempt that they've been planning all along.

Huh what?

[benitez17]

Buying and selling links reduces the quality of the SERP because it spams results that don't deserve to rank where they rank = Removed from the SERP.

I don't get why you're talking about sites run by criminals?

I'm talking about phishing sites and the like that are run by criminals. Google is treating them the same as sites where the owner decided to buy or sell some links. If they just said that they are going to remove the sites from the SERPs, that would be fine.

It's running a business, and a much more ethical business than most. I'd very much like to see more Googles and many less of the Shell, Esso, Nestle, McDonalds, KFC and Union Carbide etc etc type businesses.

I still call it bullying and making what will likely amount to empty threats based on their past track record to try and scare people. Just because there are other companies out there who are worse (and there are plenty who have done much worse than Google) doesn't mean that Google's actions should be applauded.

I didn't realize Google's goal was to not be as bad as companies who have destroyed the environment, killed people and attempted to cover it up, or did whatever these other companies did to make your list. That's a pretty low standard for them to meet.

[JJMcClure]

I'm talking about phishing sites and the like that are run by criminals. Google is treating them the same as sites where the owner decided to buy or sell some links. If they just said that they are going to remove the sites from the SERPs, that would be fine..

They're helping protect their users by putting a warning sign against sites that might have been hacked but still giving the user the choice to visit it if they want, which is fair for both visitor and site owner, AND they're putting a warning message againt sites that they believe may be attempting to spam their product with undeserved rankings which will once again protect their own users against seeing non-optimal results at the same time as giving site owners a further incentive not to try to spam the SERP. Nothing new about the intent, just a new way to protect the integrity of their product, who can blame them for that.

So in both cases they're protecting/helping their users and their product and the only people who suffer are people who breach their pretty simple and perfectly fair guidelines, don't spam our product and don't try to take advantage of our users.

Still not seeing anything wrong with this.

I still call it bullying and making what will likely amount to empty threats based on their past track record to try and scare people. Just because there are other companies out there who are worse (and there are plenty who have done much worse than Google) doesn't mean that Google's actions should be applauded..

If you've read what I wrote above and still think they're 'bullies' and 'dishonourable' then I give up, I can't change your mind. As for them being applauded, that's exactly what we should be doing in a world full of greed and corruption they're one of the better behaving companies. I applaud them by using their products in exactly the same way that offline I try to only give my money to companies that I want to see succeed.

I didn't realize Google's goal was to not be as bad as companies who have destroyed the environment, killed people and attempted to cover it up,

Didn't you? Well that what they're trying to do, and more infact, even to the point of having a not very corporate motto of 'do no evil', again, I applaud them for it.

The real irony of this situation is that if all the not so ethical companies (Microsoft spring to mind in the context of SEs) were more successful they'd probably be the targets of all this ire but they seem to be forgotten. Apparantly it's ok to be scumbags as long as you don't make too much money from it, oh wait, Gates did make a ton of money so why not shoot him down all the time too?

[tke71709]

The real irony of this situation is that if all the not so ethical companies (Microsoft spring to mind in the context of SEs) were more successful they'd probably be the targets of all this ire but they seem to be forgotten. Apparantly it's ok to be scumbags as long as you don't make too much money from it, oh wait, Gates did make a ton of money so why not shoot him down all the time too?

Market leaders take the arrows, that's the way that it is.

I still find it difficult to believe that you feel that a site that may or may not have used shady SEO tactics should be lumped in with sites that distribute malware and the such to Google users.

[benitez17]

They're helping protect their users by putting a warning sign against sites that might have been hacked but still giving the user the choice to visit it if they want, which is fair for both visitor and site owner, AND they're putting a warning message againt sites that they believe may be attempting to spam their product with undeserved rankings which will once again protect their own users against seeing non-optimal results at the same time as giving site owners a further incentive not to try to spam the SERP. Nothing new about the intent, just a new way to protect the integrity of their product, who can blame them for that.

So in both cases they're protecting/helping their users and their product and the only people who suffer are people who breach their pretty simple and perfectly fair guidelines, don't spam our product and don't try to take advantage of our users.

Still not seeing anything wrong with this.

I have no problem with Google protecting their product. I don't see how their users benefit from Google labeling a site that has bought or sold backlinks as a site that is a threat to visitors, when that isn't really true. If they have two separate warnings, then maybe they have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

You said above that what they are doing doesn't make any sense, but now you don't see anything wrong with it?

If you've read what I wrote above and still think they're 'bullies' and 'dishonourable' then I give up, I can't change your mind. As for them being applauded, that's exactly what we should be doing in a world full of greed and corruption they're one of the better behaving companies. I applaud them by using their products in exactly the same way that offline I try to only give my money to companies that I want to see succeed.

They are using their position of power to try and shape the actions of others who rely on them, and threatening to take action that would have a negative impact on those people if they don't follow Google's rules by giving them the same label they give thieves. What else would you that?

Yes, they are better than companies that sell products known to cause cancer, damage the environment, or create other negative impacts on society. That doesn't give them a total pass on decisions they make that don't benefit anyone but themselves.

Didn't you? Well that what they're trying to do, and more infact, even to the point of having a not very corporate motto of 'do no evil', again, I applaud them for it.

The real irony of this situation is that if all the not so ethical companies (Microsoft spring to mind in the context of SEs) were more successful they'd probably be the targets of all this ire but they seem to be forgotten. Apparantly it's ok to be scumbags as long as you don't make too much money from it, oh wait, Gates did make a ton of money so why not shoot him down all the time too?

Why do you keep bringing up other companies and other people? Microsoft isn't painting link sellers with the same brush as phishers, and neither is BP, Shell, Union Carbide, or any other company that I am aware of. Bill Gates is too busy giving his billions away to threaten website owners with any sort of retribution, and how he got those billions is not relevant to why Google has decided that selling links to game their SERPs warrants the same label as a site loaded up with malware.

Google is doing these things, which is why we are talking about Google.

When Bing does something similar, feel free to start a thread and complain. I'll probably join in, if not start a thread about the issue myself. If you want to start a thread in Foo complaining about BP or Shell, I'll probably comment on that as well. Until then, I'll continue to call attention to similar actions by Google that could have a negative impact on myself and the audience of this site.