Google Blogoscoped


Gaming Google - It Really Is That Easy...  (View post)

JohnMu [PersonRank 10]

Monday, August 13, 2007
15 years ago6,108 views

Sigh. Sometimes you just don't want to follow up where links come from... :-(

You covered some of the web-stats links a while back, did you ever see if anything changed?

Chance McClain [PersonRank 1]

15 years ago #

Thanks for this article. I really needed some ink cartridges and 'ink and stuff 'is perfect for my needs.

Justin J. [PersonRank 0]

15 years ago #

Excellent post. It is hard for me to believe that G doesn't want to do something about this. I personally think they have too many problems and not enough resources. I work with them daily and I've noticed that their hearts and minds are in the right place but they just can't seem to address issues in a timely manner.

Btw, I read your blog religiously and this is my first comment.

Thanks again.

Tim [PersonRank 0]

15 years ago #

It is hard to believe all those brains at Google can't find a way to correct this issue.

Ray [PersonRank 0]

15 years ago #

>>It is hard for me to believe that G doesn't want to do something about this. I personally think they have too many problems and not enough resources.<<

Well, then why doesn't Google stop wasting its time with all these hundreds of side projects, and commit their resources back to search.

Drop the whole docs and spreadsheets junk, stop trying to compete with Microsoft Office, and get back to their core strength of search.

It's not like they don't have enough resources. It is that they are consciously choosing not to allocate their resources to problems like this, and instead allocate their resources to things like "Google Web Accelerator".

Andy Baio [PersonRank 2]

15 years ago #

I'm meeting with Matt Cutts this week in advance of our Paid Links panel at SES San Jose. I'll definitely try to get updates on penalties, among other topics.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

> It is hard to believe all those brains at Google can't find
> a way to correct this issue.

I'm not sure the problem is as easy. Determining what makes a hidden link hidden is one thing with its own challenges:

Another thing is determining if the site that is linked to actually bought the link, or is part of an attack where people try to get it "googlebowled". Imagine this: Google algorithmically bans all sites linked to from this counter code. Voila, I will now create a new domain, let's calls it, and include all my competitor's site in this "hidden" snippet (without even being registered with the web counter), so they all get banned from Google!

It seems there's one thing you can do securely though I think. You can determine, manually (this needs editors), if the web counter producer does indeed include hidden links in the code they hand out today. If so, you can ban them from Google...

Roger Browne [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

> Drop the whole docs and spreadsheets junk ... and get
> back to their core strength of search.

Ray, I'd agree with you if all of Google's side projects were like Docs and Spreadsheets.

But sticking with "their core strength of search" would also mean we would never have seen Gmail or Google Maps.

Scott Fish [PersonRank 0]

15 years ago #

This beggs the question, what is considered "Paid"?

James Xuan [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

Somethink you have paid for. Hence the name "paid"

Pete [PersonRank 0]

15 years ago #

"Somethink you have paid for. Hence the name "paid""

Payment in kind? "Social" payment? Nepotism? Or just hard cash?

And what's the difference, if any?

John Honeck [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

Banning the sites in the link isn't a solution, discounting the links is. Let people waste their time hiding links, just count the viewable ones. Now if Google can rank billions of pages continously they sure should be able to figure out a way to see if a link is visible or not.

RG [PersonRank 0]

15 years ago #

You know, these guys could be ranking well because they have hundreds of pages loaded with ink cartridge-related content... yeah, it looks crappy and has terrible navigation, but Google can't see – only read.

And as for the comments about Google refocusing on search, I would agree, but I'm sure all the shareholders are demanding multiple revenue streams to ensure sustainability. Welcome to the big boys club, Google. You are now NASDAQ's bitch.

Randfish [PersonRank 1]

15 years ago #

Totally bringing you a $20, Lance. Great post.

Maurice Walshe [PersonRank 1]

15 years ago #

Ignore all stats counters and/or ban the sites reciving the links – tough love :-) name and shame works eventualy busnesses will get the

And get Matt C to do an expose ala the imortally machine guy.

the refocusing idea has some value too that whole health portal waste of space

Henirich Mueller [PersonRank 0]

15 years ago #

Kind of old news. Those image-gallery software packages always put a link to their homepage in the code that creates thumbnail galleries. But I, too, would have thought such links would be deprived of any juice.

Fridaynite [PersonRank 1]

15 years ago #

I dont know, why always those things are posted here? Are you working for Google? Do you get money from them? Those posts look like kids in the kindergarten: Mam – he beated me!!

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

15 years ago #

Why do you want us to stop reporting on spammers, do you get your money from spamming? ;)

Forum home


Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About


This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!