Google Should Penalize it's Chrome Page
- Thread starter TheMatrix
- Start date
zai21
Regular Member
- Jan 5, 2009
- 314
- 47
I saw this today and found it funny. It's going to be a lot of pressure for them after this, a lot of SEO gurus will give them shit. Going to be funny as hell if they demote there own site lol.
TheMatrix
BANNED
- Dec 20, 2008
- 3,439
- 7,401
About half a year ago, when the Panda was really rising, Google.com's PR dropped to 9! Is that a signal that Google itself is being hit by their own rule-book?
TheMatrix
BANNED
- Dec 20, 2008
- 3,439
- 7,401
Because the offer is currently for Jr VIP's only. I'll open it to all in a few days!
=========
Anyways, back to the topic....
Google is the biggest content-scraping, thin-affiliate site in existence. Which makes it all the funnier when they act so high and mighty about policing thin content. They just happened to be the first to the market with their simple business model, now if anyone tries to replicate it, they bring the hammer down on them.
Matt Cutts' response:
Cool!
Now search google for "Google Chrome" and you won't find the page there.
Link to source please?
ILoveCSharp
Regular Member
- Nov 2, 2011
- 368
- 45
Google always violate its own rules. For example you can not even have linking adult content on adsense site yet deviantart has full soft porn and displaying adsense ads
bennyboyccl
Junior Member
- Nov 4, 2011
- 172
- 27
Google did ... rankings dropped dramatically
midnight_focus
BANNED
- Dec 2, 2008
- 781
- 481
TheMatrix
BANNED
- Dec 20, 2008
- 3,439
- 7,401
it's a joke
Code:
https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202/posts/NAWunDzJSHC
Talsin
Regular Member
- Mar 18, 2010
- 385
- 108
Whilst technically it's good that Matt responded like that, if I was one of his bosses I would have his balls.
Google spend a fuckton of money to promote Chrome, Google webspam team respond by demoting Chrome in the SERPs for keywords relating to browser. Fair enough Matt's following their rules, but I would still fire his ass if I was above him in the Google structure.
Google spend a fuckton of money to promote Chrome, Google webspam team respond by demoting Chrome in the SERPs for keywords relating to browser. Fair enough Matt's following their rules, but I would still fire his ass if I was above him in the Google structure.
midnight_focus
BANNED
- Dec 2, 2008
- 781
- 481
wow that was not a joke
stupid me
however by searching google for "google chrome" they still have an ad and the sitelinks to google chrome so not much of a penalty
I would love to see them getting -50 or -100 penalty
meatro
BANNED
- Nov 21, 2009
- 568
- 1,001
This is hilarious. Chrome gets totally busted using paid links/content.
"We found these paid-looking links with very targeted anchor text pointing at your page. WTF?"
"Huh? No, we only wanted them to check out the video.. They linked to us on their own. We weren't paying for links and content."
"Weird, because the company that ran the campaign pays out based on the page's PR. Plus, why do you want people to watch this completely unrelated video?"
"Well.. Higher PR means that the views the video gets are higher quality."
"......Higher PR also means that you get strong back links with targeted anchor text."
"See here, read the T&C. They're supposed to use nofollow, placing PR flowing links is against Google guidelines. We wouldn't do that."
"The T&C didn't say that yesterday."
"WTF ever man, it wasn't even us that did it! You need to talk to this media company over there!"
Why would you fire Matt Cutts? This is the shadiest link building ever from Google. Going through a blog that goes through a company that goes through another company that changes their T&C today and shows you what it says tomorrow?
I would penalize the Chrome page, too. If I work for a company that doesn't let you watch porn at your desk... I'm the network security... I catch you watching porn at your desk. How the hell are you going to say I should be fired because I won't let you watch porn, because it "helps you relax and do your job better?"
"We found these paid-looking links with very targeted anchor text pointing at your page. WTF?"
"Huh? No, we only wanted them to check out the video.. They linked to us on their own. We weren't paying for links and content."
"Weird, because the company that ran the campaign pays out based on the page's PR. Plus, why do you want people to watch this completely unrelated video?"
"Well.. Higher PR means that the views the video gets are higher quality."
"......Higher PR also means that you get strong back links with targeted anchor text."
"See here, read the T&C. They're supposed to use nofollow, placing PR flowing links is against Google guidelines. We wouldn't do that."
"The T&C didn't say that yesterday."
"WTF ever man, it wasn't even us that did it! You need to talk to this media company over there!"
Why would you fire Matt Cutts? This is the shadiest link building ever from Google. Going through a blog that goes through a company that goes through another company that changes their T&C today and shows you what it says tomorrow?
I would penalize the Chrome page, too. If I work for a company that doesn't let you watch porn at your desk... I'm the network security... I catch you watching porn at your desk. How the hell are you going to say I should be fired because I won't let you watch porn, because it "helps you relax and do your job better?"
Talsin
Regular Member
- Mar 18, 2010
- 385
- 108
Because in this case the rest of the company decided that actually it was ok to watch porn at your desk, they just didn't tell the IT guys that's what they decided.
If Google Marketing with (presumably) blessing from on high decided to promote a Google Property in this way, then it doesn't make sense for the Google Spam team to then penalize said Google Property because of the pre-approved efforts of the Google Marketing team. Regardless of what Googles general policy is.
meatro
BANNED
- Nov 21, 2009
- 568
- 1,001
I bet they'll tell the IT guys next time, eh?
But really, it's horrible policy to establish guidelines for your users to follow and then not follow those guidelines yourself. How am I expected to believe that if I create quality content and leave it to sit and rot, eventually it will pick up organic traffic and links when you're the person telling me that and you are paying for links? That makes me think I need to pay for links and you're just blowing smoke up my ass so I don't move in on your niche.
Also, marketing is just the same as IT. It's not the core department of Google, it's just that; a department. If the marketing director is advising or approving branches of the company to use shady techniques, why wouldn't the IT director punish those branches for contributing to not only to the level of spam in the SERPs, but negative image of the company as well? If I'm Matt Cutts, I work especially hard in convincing people not to do what you're doing and what you're doing reflects negatively on my work. I would most DEFINITELY be punishing that branch; especially when all those questions started rolling in.
As the former IT lead for a fairly large corporation, I can tell you that the marketing director has no business telling me how to do my job and if he thinks he's going to one up me and somehow force me to listen to him.. I'm happy to oblige him in kissing my butthole. I'm also happy to oblige him in updating his security policies so that his network password expires every 12 minutes, must be at least 64 alpha-num characters long and contain the term, "imadick."
wokaka
Senior Member
- Apr 1, 2010
- 995
- 269
lol dude, it's only publicity stunt. I mean if searchengineland never found the paid link, definitely Matt Cutts and his team wouldn't demote Chrome rankings (even if he knew already and I bet he knew). Google demoted Chrome simply to gain sympathy because they have been busted. Simple.
TheMatrix
BANNED
- Dec 20, 2008
- 3,439
- 7,401