What happened with the leaked Google manual?

[omida86]

from what it seems the this leaked document was written by davejug1

What makes you say that? And who is davejug1?

 

[ThopHayt]

No, I have a feeling it's a legit doc.

I used Bing to search for it and found where it came from but it wasn't downloadable anymore.

Google is trying HARD to cover this up and stop the bleeding. It's up to blackhatters to not be stingy with eachother or else insight will die.

 

[bikerboy]

Well, that's because the mods here at BHW are Google's employees?

 

[shadowedsniper]

I read every single page of this document and it's honestly nothing you wouldn't have already known unless you're clueless.

The examples are nice references though to see what actually qualifies as a bad site/article.

 

[confined]

EMD woes:

from the doc

Note: URLs that contain informational terms like
"pregnancy symptoms" should not be rated Vital,
even when they match the query.

 

[hexa714]

What's interesting and scary is the manual reads as though the reviewer is not knowlegeable at all in search and search results. Wonder what effect there is if your site is tagged as spam.

 

[b1step-ahead]

just ran thru the docs- basically make everything vital- vital this and vital that- might work

 

[gman280d]

I thought the manual would've been something interesting, but if its just the guideline review, I actually already had an older copy of it. I used to work for Leapforce and had to go through that whole thing. Pain in the a of a job.

 

[PDRMTKG]

without seeing the doc, but from what others are saying, it sounds as though it's just the Lionbridge guidelines for URL rating.

 

[flibbertigibbet]

I read every single page of this document and it's honestly nothing you wouldn't have already known unless you're clueless.

The examples are nice references though to see what actually qualifies as a bad site/article.

I personally dont' think that this rating system is the greatest. The ratings that the reviewers give are completely subjective. What if they're not interested in the query they're reviewing? Say, for example, they're completely analytical and don't like fantasy stuff, and have to review a gaming site or something. To them it may seem slightly relevant when they land on the page, but to the person who is actually using that search term on a daily/weekly basis, the site is INCREDIBLY relevant. Not cool. I think they should categorize the types of reviewers based on their interests and give them keywords that are related to their interests so that they can get better results....

 

[gman280d]

I completely agree. The guidelines are pretty ridiculous and a lot of times don't say specifically what to do in a certain case and to just "use your own judgement". I'm sure this ambiguity contributes to plenty of people losing their jobs as site rankers. I guess they just keep who they want around.

 

[PDRMTKG]

I completely agree. The guidelines are pretty ridiculous and a lot of times don't say specifically what to do in a certain case and to just "use your own judgement". I'm sure this ambiguity contributes to plenty of people losing their jobs as site rankers. I guess they just keep who they want around.

Lionbridge is notorious for firing people randomly right after a great quality review. They're a fucked up company.

 

[fad3r]

So is the google docs link what the original link was or are they different

 

[gman280d]

Lionbridge is notorious for firing people randomly right after a great quality review. They're a fucked up company.

Yep, doesn't sound too surprising. I'm assuming that's what happened to you? I got the same thing from Leapforce. As far as I know, those are the only 2 companies of that kind. Since there isn't much choice, they probably screw a fair amount of people out of money and time that they've put in.

 

[lancis]

These guidelines were written for a clueless people, the information you'll find there is far below the intuition level of any "advanced" user.

I assume Google outsources the dirty job of reviewing to "microworkers", then runs its statistical algorithms to decide whether the majority voted site as spam/vital/etc.

 

[bk071]

These guidelines were written for a clueless people, the information you'll find there is far below the intuition level of any "advanced" user.

I assume Google outsources the dirty job of reviewing to "microworkers", then runs its statistical algorithms to decide whether the majority voted site as spam/vital/etc.

They outsource to this company. And the document everyone is discussing here is issued by the same company to its employees (Called "internet assessors"), not by GOOGLE!

I have a friend who works for Lionbridge and he showed me this document back in May 2011.

 

[seomusic]

i have it and its not its nothing new ... if you know what happen to seo these days...

 

[FrozenSpade]

They outsource to this company. And the document everyone is discussing here is issued by the same company to its employees (Called "internet assessors"), not by GOOGLE!

I have a friend who works for Lionbridge and he showed me this document back in May 2011.

Lol they ripped off the logo of xbox in that image on the homepage.

 

[Jake2006]

Read the document, interesting stuff. Couldn't get it on those places. Seemed a lot were removed. Was able to dig through and got my copy at
j.gs/NbC

 

[edgali]

So by the looks is not by google, but why was it removed from here?