Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Traffic-Power.com Banned in Google  (View post)

Aaron Pratt [PersonRank 1]

Sunday, February 12, 2006
16 years ago

Where can I get a Blogscoped t-shirt? :-)

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

Ironically enough, CafePress deletes the shirt whenever I put "Google Blogoscoped" on it. The rest of my shirts are here:
http://www.cafepress.com/blogoscoped [affiliate]

Stephen [PersonRank 0]

16 years ago #

I find this image ironic.

http://storetn.cafepress.com/6/34608666_F_store.jpg

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

yeah, Philipp , mine has not yet been dleivered.. its takes 8/10 days for delivery, they told me..

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

This is good that SEO are getting roped in. Why are companies so gulliable for fast returns in their own markerts ??

/pd [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

but again -theres a flash occuring within this head of mine..SEO are being banned.. but I am asking a reverse question here..on false positives

http://blogoscoped.com/forum/19361.html

Zoolander [PersonRank 4]

16 years ago #

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1158956,00.html

Search Engines Web.com [PersonRank 3]

16 years ago #

It is not right to Ban that company nor their innocent Websites...

There is no practical reason to WITHDRAW relevant information for the Public's use via a Google Search....

In other words, WHY SHOULD THE ENTIRE INFO DISAPPEAR – TOTALLY – because of ONE JavaScript redirected Doorway Page....

When you are dealing with People's livelihood and jobs/survival,
there should always be compassion and the benefit of the doubt given.
There are REAL Human Beings that are being injured...

You are "Blanketly" taking away portions of people's income – their ability to earn a living – via their Website from Google Referals....

These innocent Website owners deserve mercy, the SEO company deserves the benefit of the doubt only because they were only attempting to compensate for the limitations of current search technology...

Why should Webmasters be forced to "dumb-down" their Websites and give up aesthetics for SEO – because of the limitations of the current technology...

The coldness and viscious treatment that these people received illustrates an industry of people who thrive on kicking others whle they are down, a field of heartless professionals with no sympathy – just a "KILL" attitude.
Laughing at others who are bleeding...

Lets wish those companies success and luck in regaining their business...

Tadeusz Szewczyk [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

As a white hat SEO I can very well understand that sites are banned due to misleading techniques that breach the Google guidelines. It's not only biting the hand that feeds you as we say in Germany but also unfair competition.

Real SEO is similar to sports, you train your website for months or years to be the best before the referee, Google. Then someone on steroids appears and takes away your price money. So no wonder s/he gets disqualified.

Ethical SEOs build clean websites, organic links, hate and fight spam. I do not want spammers that threaten and want to silence real SEOs like Aaron Wall to be called SEOs at all. They just discredit the whole profession. People start to ask why I am spammer by now because they do not see a difference anymore after such news appear again and again.

So please distinguish between SEO and search engine spam. Spammers are not SEOs and SEOs are not spammers.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

16 years ago #

> Spammers are not SEOs and
> SEOs are not spammers.

I beg to differ – SEOs sometimes are spammers. :)
Just as bloggers are sometimes spammers.
Germans are sometimes spammers.
Humans are sometimes spammers.
etc.
It is just as wrong to say "SEOs are not spammers" as it is to say "All SEOs are spammers." The truth, as usual, is somewhere inbetween. If you want to differentiate yourself, maybe you need to create an initiative – something like EUO:
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2003_06_06_index.html#200393098

Bill Kelm [PersonRank 1]

16 years ago #

"These innocent Website owners deserve mercy, the SEO company deserves the benefit of the doubt only because they were only attempting to compensate for the limitations of current search technology... "

Philipp, it never ceases to amaze me how some (many) people rationalize their, or other, people's harmful behavior to themselves or other people. To me (I've been in the role of "intermediary" for most of my business life) this whole SEO SPAM, and "white hat" -"black hat" (misleading misnomer's, IMO) thing is a great study in human nature. Some people's opinion is that "Ethics" are not involved in breaking the leading SE's Guidelines for Webmasters and SEO's, as they can't (or refuse to) see why "attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results" harm the search user. "Search users" come 1st, IMO, before the Website owners or SEO-SEM's, thereby helping to insure a "win-win-win" business scenario. The negative traditional media articles that usually distort the truth somehow about these things also harms the overall reputation of the Search Marketing Industry, and therefore the reputation of the professional, honest, "stay within the guidelines", value driven SEO's who deserve better.

Sure the completely "innocent" Website owners deserve mercy, but how is Google supposed to decide (beyond a showdow of a doubt) which ones are "innocent" due to ignorance, and which ones just say they are innocent, but really are not? That's why, IMO, Google is forced to say "Ultimately, you are responsible for the actions of any companies you hire, so it's best to be sure you know exactly how they intend to "help" you." (http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html).

I feel what those Website owners do deserve is some "tough love", for a while, at least, so that they are more careful and more educated in the future. They may even spread "Word Of Mouth" about their negative experience. After all, let's hope those Website owners put the "search users" first in their set of priorities. If they don't, there is the the possiblity that the "search users" MAY (not necessarily) be served something other than the best quality content on the top of the 1st SERP because of programming and analytic techniques directed only to the SE spiders (SPAM – "Black Hat" SEO techniques).

As for "they were only attempting to compensate for the limitations of current search technology...", this can be a "half truth" (which are "lies", IMO). Although I'm not a "rubber meets the road" SEO, but only an avid observer of the industry, I believe that there are many "search engine guidelines acceptable" techniques that good, professional SEO's can use to "compensate for the limitations of the current search technology:" So, the statement above is a rationalizing and "copping out", IMO, in the greater majority of situations. That said, there is room for improved communication from all the leading SE's, along with doing all they can to avoid the perception or misperception of favoritism of any kind.

Forum home

Advertisement

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

 

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