Archive for the ‘Google’ Category

Bing is Just Better

Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen the hypocrisy coming out of Google reaching new all time highs. The mud slinging out of the Google camp is a signal:

Google is running scared.

Bing has gotten better. A lot better: and Google has gone from ignoring Bing to character assassination.

The latest hoopla goes like this “Waaaah, Bing is copying our search results!” When we dig deeper, we find that, no, Bing is not copying Google results, they are tracking user searching behavior. But hold on, doesn’t Google’s Privacy policy say (and I quote):

“Some of our services, including Google Toolbar and Google Web Accelerator, send the uniform resource locators (“URLs”) of web pages that you request to Google. When you use these services, Google will receive and store the URL sent by the web sites you visit, including any personal information inserted into those URLs by the web site operator. Some Google services (such as Google Toolbar) enable you to opt-in or opt-out of sending URLs to Google, while for others (such as Google Web Accelerator) the sending of URLs to Google is intrinsic to the service””

So Google Does EXACTLY THE SAME THING and throws mud at Bing for doing it? . . . AGAIN? The part that’s even worse is that people who are suppose to be “Search Engine Journalists” can’t even get the story right, because they’re too busy sucking Google cock and just blindly reprint everything fed to them.

The Fact is that Bing has gotten better. It’s a viable competitor and it’s taking market share from Google in the US. This year will be a repeat: Bing will shave off at least another 3 points of US Marketshare: at the expense of Google.

Google is scared. They call Bing’s Results “a Cheap imitation”, but the fact is that Bing is now consistently delivering better results. For all queries? No, not yet. But for your average, non power user, Bing delivers.

If you haven’t used it in a while, head back over to Bing. Use it for a week as your first Go To search engine. It’s much better than you thought.

Anti PR SEO – Made Profitable by Google

I know I haven’t posted in forever, but this is just too great to pass up:

Not only has this heap of grievances failed to deter DecorMyEyes, but as Ms. Rodriguez’s all-too-cursory Google search demonstrated, the company can show up in the most coveted place on the Internet’s most powerful site.

Which means the owner of DecorMyEyes might be more than just a combustible bully with a mean streak and a potty mouth. He might also be a pioneer of a new brand of anti-salesmanship – utterly noxious retail – that is facilitated by the quirks and shortcomings of Internet commerce and that tramples long-cherished traditions of customer service, like deference and charm.

Nice? No.

Profitable?

“Very,” says Vitaly Borker, the founder and owner of DecorMyEyes, during the first of several surprisingly unguarded conversations.

“I’ve exploited this opportunity because it works. No matter where they post their negative comments, it helps my return on investment. So I decided, why not use that negativity to my advantage?”


19 pages, but an interesting story
. You can get the jist of it by reading the first 5.

How’s that old saying go? No publicity is bad publicity.

Gmail Feature Follow-Up: This Ain’t Mashable Here!

Alright so already the “This Gmail Feature Would be Amazing” has more tweets than any other post I’ve ever done. Sure, 120 (as i’m writing this) isn’t earth-shattering, but this blog ain’t exactly mashable, (where every retarded post gets that many.)

But I’ve been convinced by the comments that it could be turned into an auto spammer with the auto-resend feature. No problem, we don’t need it. We just need to be reminded in 1-7 days when the thread we started or replied to has not been responded to.

Most of the time the email will be a reply with the original quoted saying “Where are we on this?” But not always.

If you understand GTG, you know why this would be so incredibly helpful. Even if you don’t, you probably understand at least half the benefit.

So Google: Where’s my new feature?!?

Hotmail? . . .Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

This Gmail Feature Would Be Amazing

I know you Google Employees read this blog.

So listen up: take that free time or whatever it is that lets you start up side projects and implement this feature in gmail:

asdfadseccc

It will be so incredibly useful that I’m shocked no one has done it before. Shit, if Hotmail implemented this feature and fixed it so the browser back button worked, I’d fucking start using hotmail: it would be that helpful.

Aaron: It’s not Spam, It’s a “Newsmaster Site”

Aaron, Aaron. You still don’t know the difference between a spam site and a newsmaster site?

While they may appear similar, they are actually quite different.

Since you’re having trouble with it (and you ARE an SEO expert), no doubt some of my other readers are struggling with it as well. So for all of you, I’ll give you this infographic cheat sheet:

spam-vs-newsmaster

It’s pretty clear to me.

Also note: If you spout off bullshit about purple cows or you have already made millions selling off your steaming pile of shit web “business” during a bubble, then from that point onward, you are incapable of making a spam site. The sociopaths over at Google are too starstruck to ever consider anything you do “spam.”

Hope that helps!

-q

Google Suggest: The Potential for Power, Coruption, and Liability

How long before Google’s suggestions actually cause measurable harm to a person or company?

.
suggest-virus

We’ve already seen the tendency for Google to suggest the rather inappropriate.

So what would happen if someone who owned a enough boxes sent out enough Google queries on seemingly legitimate accounts? Could this type of activity damage a competitor’s brand?

Could it go far enough toward ruining someone’s life that Google would be held responsible in court?

Google suggest is a useful feature and perhaps we’re still just in the beta format (isn’t everything there considered beta for years?).

Regardless of what they do with this tool, they’re gonna take some heat. If they suggest sponsors – well if they do that, I’d love to sign up! But I’m sure people will bitch and moan about it.

If they clearly augment the suggestions by human review, then it’s going to be increasingly difficult for them to retain the image of being agnostic about the results. Google won’t be able to hide behind “oh, well that’s just what the big machine behind the curtain spits out”.

This type of suggestion is very powerful. The potential for abuse (whatever that means) is enormous. This is Orwell’s Ministry of Truth incarnate: only stronger. That 1984 vision only had the power to change the answer.

Google takes that one step further: they have the power to change the very question.

I, for one, am certainly happy that this power rests in the hands of a company that “don’t be evil.”

Aren’t you?.

How High is the Evil Bar?

or Setting the Bar High

Matt did a response to Anil Dash’s great post. I got a chuckle out of this from matt:

“Don’t be evil” sets an incredibly high bar for Google’s conduct. It can be frustrating to get called out for not being perfect when other companies aren’t doing things as well as Google, but that high standard helps keep Google on track.

Don’t be evil is a high bar? – nay – and INCREDIBLY high bar!?!? I guess so . . . In the same sense that “Try not to shit yourself”, “Get that GED” or “Don’t Torture Kittens . . . Today” are all incredibly high bars.

Evil Monkey

The implication from Google is that all those other big companies ARE evil; which goes towards the heart of Google’s real problem: arrogance. I don’t blame them, I’d probably be arrogant too if my company dominated an important space the way they do. But don’t give us this “high bar” nonsense.

When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I’ve never tried before.” – Mae West

I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth.” – Molly Ivins

What do you think? How high of a bar is “Don’t be Evil”? Is it like climbing Mount Everest – or more like passing a driving test.

Q&A: How Does Google Treat Duplicate Content?

Reteep Asked:

“How much of a problem is the duplicate content stuff for the bottom layer [of] autogenerated sites? Does it matter?”

Duplicate Content is one of the great boogie men of SEO. So many people are scared of it; so many people are worried that if they have duplicate content their site will face a ranking penalty. Is it true? Does Google Penalize you for having Duplicate Content? If so how much? How can duplicate content hurt you? How can it help you? Well sit back, because although I’m sure it’s been answered before, I’ve gonna give you the straight dope on duplicate content and Google.

First Off; what do we mean by “Duplicate Content”? Duplicate content means that the text of one web page matches another page’s. The text matching does not need to be 100% to be considered duplicate content. Matching can be less than 50% and still be considered duplicate especially if various chunks of content can be found on other pages.

For Example: Any site that runs AP stories will have heaps of duplicate content. Google doesn’t penalize the news site for running the stories, but unlike last year, now all (or almost all) of the AP stories are hosted on Google. Examples:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD99D0RV80

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwJhPuY4ndVAdfJgwbiS3uh7uIGgD99CJOBO0

Interestingly, When I google “AP Interview: Hayden denies Congress not informed” The top 10 results:

SERPs for AP Stories

Include Yahoo at number 1 and Google’s own story in the Top 10. Long term, expect Google to put itself at number 1 for all these types of queries.

The benefit to running an AP story is that if you can rank for the query (like Yahoo did), you can get search traffic. Plus there’s a chance when those stories run on XYZ newspaper site (or your site) that the story will get picked up by a slashdot, or a Digg, or Fark or whatever and receive a few hundred links. The only negative the newspaper sites could get from running these stories is by diluting their internal link juice by linking internally to these stories.

Clearly, Google does not penalize trusted sites for having duplicate content. In almost all cases, your Penalty in Google is NOT because you have duplicate content. 99.9% of the time, the problem is somewhere else.

The way that duplicate content can hurt you would be if you have multiple copies of the same story on your website. You will not get a “penalty” from Google but you will dilute both your internal link juice and could potentially split any natural inbound links (and therefore ranking power) among all the copies of the page. This type of dilution could take an item that would have ranked and banish it to obscurity.

The same applies for spam sites. Unless your site is screaming “I AM A SPAM SITE”, the duplicate content penalty is not gonna hit. And since you would have gotten hit anyway by that human reviewer that just marked your site (and Network, if you weren’t careful) as spam, we can safely say that there is no official Duplicate Content Penalty at Google.

Fire away with more questions; don’t worry, I intend to tackle some of the other ones that were asked this weekend later this week.

“What if everyone whose account was canceled sued Google?”

Why I Sued Google (and Won) – Aaron Greenspan

“But it’s not fair!” Google’s paralegal protested. “What if everyone whose account was canceled sued Google?”

It’s a valid question. Yet until Google changes its policies to become more transparent, which might also reassure skeptics that AdWords and AdSense, which have oddly limited reporting capabilities, aren’t just two sides of the same ponzi scheme (for why else would one want to terminate legitimate accounts with high monthly liabilities when they’re supposed to be making money for Google on each click?)–I will give this answer:

Maybe everyone whose account was canceled, should.

Solid article and worth a read.

The Following Pay Per Post Was Paid for by Google

Via blogscope, we see that Google Japan was buying paid posts:

[Google] are now using a tainted and controversial social media optimization method called pay-per-post, provided by CyberBuzz.

(confirmed by Google’s apology)

“Google Japan is running several promotional activities to let people know more about our products.

It turns out that using blogs on the part of the promotional activities violates Google’s search guidelines, so we have ended the promotion. We would like to apologize to the people concerned and to our users, and are making an effort to make our communications more transparent in order to prevent the recurrence of such an incident.”

I’ve filed a spam report about Google Japan and encourage you to do the same.

The query is “Google Japan”

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+japan

and the result is that first one:

http://www.google.co.jp/ – NOFOLLOWED YOU SHADY BITCH!

Remember that Public Apology

If Google Japan is not penalized (and right now, they still have a page rank 9), then shouldn’t the same option be available to all the rest of us? If we’re caught spamming, we just publish something that says:

It turns out that [insert search engine spamming technique] on the part of the promotional activities violates Google’s search guidelines, so we have ended the promotion. We would like to apologize to the people concerned and to our users, and are making an effort to make our communications more transparent in order to prevent the recurrence of such an incident.

then any penalty should be immediately lifted. Wouldn’t that be the fair way to do it?

Google should even add a section to webmaster central where we can link to our apology. This way, we can avoid that pesky penalty all together.

The above post was paid for by Google and does not necessarily represent the opinions of SEO Blackhat, it’s Black Hat Forums, or QuadsZilla. Normally I wouldn’t whore myself out like this, but hey – a man’s gotta eat!