Transparency vs Asymmetrical Information

[JJMcClure]

A thread title I could probably only use on this forum since most aren't frequented by people intelligent enough to immediately be curious about what the hell it means. If you already know what it means, you're better read than I.

http://www.seobook.com/transparency - yes it's anti-google and yes I posted it because I know it'll get views here and possibly be useful

"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[Clinton]

Wow, just wow. It was a long read but what an absolutely, stunningly fantastic post from Aaron Wall!

[JJMcClure]

Yes, certainly gives cause for thought.

[Clinton]

Jill Whalen has a post on her site today as to why you should use Google's new rel-Author

... how to do it... follow Google's directions. Suffice it to say that the main things you need are a Google Profile page that links to the website where you have author status, and a link back from your website's home page to your Google Profile page.

You can also have an "author page," such as the About Us page on your website, as long as your Google profile page links to that page.

Once you've got that all implemented, every time you write an article, simply link your name in your byline to either your Google Profile page or your author page with the Rel=Author code, as I have here:

By <a href="/jill-whalen" rel="author">Jill Whalen</a>

Why do it? Because it makes your content stand out and she has a picture on that post demonstrating the point well. Content that stands out gets more clicks.

She adds:

This is huge, folks, and this reason alone makes it worth figuring out the implementation.

Now I have great respect for Jill, but this is getting bloody ridiculous! We shouldn't be slaves to someone else telling us how to build our sites...and then changing the goal posts every two weeks. Who the bloody hell do Google think they are? The very insidious nature of forcing people to create a Google Profile to increase traffic from the SE is corrupt! It is bias in favour of those willing to share more and more information with the Gorg and a pressure on those who would rather not share.

Further, the Gorg have determined that you have to link to your Google Profile from your site's homepage! They don't just want you to have a profile page, they want you to be heavily invested in it. Don't link from your homepage and rel=author won't work. What guarantees are they giving you on that profile page? Have they said they'll never charge for it? Never post ads on it? Never use it to promote your competitors?

They are building content that they control and OWN. So far, all they had was an algo and a brand. And they've recognised they need more than that, they need content. They need quality content. And it looks like they've found a way to get suckers to create it for them. If we go along with this nonsense we're helping Google in a greedy rush to get a little extra traffic in the short term. Yes, it's the short term. Webmasters have a short memory. Google has used these tactics to screw webmasters in the past. If you have any doubt and/or just don't know in how many ways they did it, go read Aaron Wall's post! So, you'll get a short term traffic boost and a long term shaft.

Note that they are not willing to use your profile pages from anywhere else, like LinkedIn etc. No, it's got to be a Google Profile. See also searchengineland's take - rel=author is just another way of exploiting what Google know they have for the moment - the ear of webmasters' - to help the organisation compete against the big social networks.

I will not use author=rel or the other ridiculous rules Google makes - like nofollow. Sheeple, they aren't making these rules to help you, it's to help them.

[JJMcClure]

Can't really answer that post without repeating things I've said before on this forum and there's little point doing that. Suffice to say that I'm aware of everything you've just said, I just don't feel the same way about it, I'll feed at the Google teat as long as it exists and then move on when it gets replaced. I've always understood that there's no such thing as a free lunch though and as web site builder I've long been aware of how much google have influenced how sites are built, this is just a much more sophisticated level of involvement by them.

That article really rips them a new one though doesn't it. Now that's what I call an informed rant.

[benitez17]

I definitely wasn't expecting a tirade about Google when I saw the title.

While I agree wholeheartedly with this critique of Google, it describes a larger problem in business and life as well that could be worth discussing. It's usually in the best interest of everyone to share information, but it only makes sense for an individual to do so when everyone else is participating, so no one wants to be the first one to open up.