1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Google's Link Warnings Designed to Force More Reliance on Search?

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by assphuck, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. assphuck

    assphuck Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    905
    As many know, on 7/27/2012 Matt Cutts further elaborated on Google's unnatural link notices/warnings appearing in Webmaster Tools Accounts. You can read about it here, if you have not seen it yet. I want to focus on one topic in Matt's post that touched a nerve with me, so I will explain below.

    In the post above, Matt Cutts also states:

    This is yet another overreach by Google, with implied threats, to control what content we have on our websites, who we link to, who links to us and how we are compensated for our time.

    There should be an antitrust investigation launched into this whole backlink fiasco. Google's aggressive and anti-competitive actions are structurally designed to put fear into webmaster's minds that linking is bad - thus reducing referral traffic and promoting a greater reliance on Google search.

    The web's design is such that interlinking websites collectively form a "web." Google's actions are clearly anti-competitive, and their actions are creating international policy regarding e-commerce.

    Furthermore, Google's implied threats indicate that webmaster's are not due compensation for the time they have invested in responding to link removal requests, the physical labor required to remove them and the potential risks born out of litigation. Millions of webmasters now have these burdens placed on them, due to Google's ability to create regulatory actions with their monopolistic power, and potentially face penalties when seeking compensation for their labor.

    Anyone involved in e-commerce has good justification to fear Google. It's time regulators stepped in to assume their roles in regulating an international industry, e-commerce, which has reached one trillion dollars in yearly economic activity. No single company, such as Google, should be permitted to reshape the policies regarding e-commerce and the fundamental structure of the web without first going before an international court made up of judges from all corners of the Earth.

    Recently Google has expanded into the broadband market. Not only does Google want to reduce the choices and methods you use to find other websites, but they also want to control how you get online. For a company that already has a monopoly over e-commerce, does anyone other than I see major issues with allowing Google to expand into broadband too? Think of the abuses, unbeknown to users, that could occur when Google further expands into more markets and drives other broadband suppliers out of business.

    Are the regulatory bodies of this world asleep at the wheel or am I just crazy?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 11
  2. cocococo

    cocococo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    911
    Likes Received:
    426
    maybe its time some organisation comes up to police google the way they policing every webmasters.
     
  3. BLIXX

    BLIXX Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    488
    Location:
    Location, Location.
    Awesome thread is awesome.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust and general sentiment expressed in your post, OP. The problem, however, as it currently stands, is (by-and-large) an issue of semantics; i.e. what does and does not constitute 'antitrust', 'monopoly', 'anti-competition' etc. as these terms, and arguably applicable long-standing legal precedents, apply to Google.

    Google is an anomaly. Nothing before like it. Couple that with the legal protections of patent-protected and proprietary technology, and voila: Google finds itself in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time to pilfer the Web and make of it what they will. It's their fucking tag-line, for God's sake; like their forcefully tea-bagging the world, all whilst wearing a beanie.

    We know what they are doing, if only through stick-dumb observation of Google's net effect as they stick their fingers into whatever pie they want to, then out-right steal that same pie from the baker's very hands without so much as a "thanks, buddy".

    Further, you are absolutely correct in saying that regulatory policy as regards Google is not created by entities created for, or by, The People; but by Google, itself, in a bizarre, nearly surreal flipping-on-its-head of democratic and ethical ideals.


    Anyway, nice to see a thread like this. Hope the herd participates if only to learn something more important than any amount of money can ever be, or mean.


    Interesting (applicable?) bit of trivia: Google's Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, is married to a woman named Anne E. Wojcicki, an American biotech analyst and co-founder of 23andMe.

    What is 23and Me? Glad you asked:

    Code:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23andMe

    If one has ADD/ADHD and/or are of the "TLDR, mmmmaaaannnnn LULZ!!!!!11" set, here's the tard version: Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, the people who think its cool to read your emails to serve you better ads, is married to a woman who analyzes and catalogs human DNA profiles.




    The very essence of who you are.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. NetMarketer

    NetMarketer Newbie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    15
    Of course you're not crazy, you're just lucid. It's been surreal to watch how much power has been willingly given to Google to dictate the way the entire Internet works. It started with the introduction and mass adoption of nofollow. Naive webmasters thought it would stop comment spam and it ended up being abused and severely distorted the link graph of the entire web.

    I guess the problem is most people don't consider potential consequences or think very much in general.

    So yeah, the move to broadband looks insidious to me. It should be pretty clear by now that Google's goal is to monitor the entire Internet.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. assphuck

    assphuck Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    905
    It just amazes me that so few have opinions on what Google is doing and how they are changing the future landscape of e-commerce. :(

    Silence, a form of defeatism, is not good when many livelihoods depend on a fair digital landscape to compete in. With each day that passes, Google is positioning themselves to control an ever larger slice of the pie. In ten years there may only be crumbs left...
     
  6. LBrown

    LBrown Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Occupation:
    Internet Marketer - Full Timer
    Location:
    The Land of the Brave
    Around the world some governments are taking on Google. They're a few years behind in the violations that they're being charged with but they'll catch up... in time.

    In the US, Google has donated close to $1mil to the current administration so I don't see this government taking up the issue any time soon.

    edit: Nearly $1mil was the number from the 2008 election; I have no idea what their current tally is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  7. NetMarketer

    NetMarketer Newbie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    15
    I'm surprised at the lack of response to this thread myself. That quote about punishing sites that may charge for link removal is way over the line. And the presumption of guilt because a site owner dares to put monetary value their time should be alarming. I can only imagine the volume of requests some of these big directories are getting because of the burden of web cleanup Google is trying to place on everyone else. People don't even know what links are causing problems, they're just operating in panic mode and asking how high Google wants them to jump. Chaos and fear is a good way to kill productivity so the campaign appears to be working.

    I've seen some dissent on the "white hat" forums -- more than here actually. So maybe there's hope.
     
  8. ryannull

    ryannull Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    332
    Location:
    Zombieland, Florida
    Home Page:
    I could rant a novel on all the bullshit I hate about Google. I use to like Google until 2004, when Adwords was born and they went IPO. I knew where it was going and what they would turn into. They are more corrupt than the US Government, if that's even possible.

    I just want to comment on a couple things before I go into an out of control rant.

    Google as an ISP? Not touching it, I don't care how good it is. I don't have ANY Google products or services, except for Adsense, and that's only on a few websites. I refuse to own anything that is owed by Google. I don't like the idea of being tracked. Atleast I can pick and choose other services to get around it. If you get Google as an ISP, they will know everything you are doing and share it with the US Government.

    For those people that say, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry about being tracked?". Techniquely, all ISP keep a log of what you are doing online, but they don't share it with others without a court order. Google will either hand it over or lie about it and do it anyways, like they did with Safari. There are so many false flags going on now, it's pretty scary.

    As far as Cutts, he should be fired. He is not making Google's search about the users, it's about Google vs SEOs. He has taken this way too far. So, Google is going to penalize websites that don't remove links? Is that what is next? That's pathetic.

    If Google didn't have such a large monopoly going, they wouldn't be doing any of this. Because they do, they can shape the entire internet into whatever they want, and EVERYONE will have to bow down and comply or kiss your business goodbye.

    This is going to get worse, until a search engine knocks Google off top. I was really rooting for Bing, even though most people don't like them or don't use them. As of right now, they are better.

    End of rant. :p
     
  9. assphuck

    assphuck Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    905
    For the big directories they are forced to shell out labor for security too. Just confirming every Tom, Dick and Harry is the legitimate owner of the link has to be a headache in itself. And Google expects these directories to do this for free? I would venture to say a good portion of the link removal requests they actually receive are from people trying to hurt their competitors ranks.

    The lack of interest in what Google is doing, their repeated trends of improper conduct (not deleting street view data for example) is disheartening. I thought BHW members had more balls and drive to change more than just their own ranks. Apparently I am wrong. :(
     
  10. powforlife

    powforlife Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    74
    Occupation:
    Directing Traffic
    Location:
    A to the Z
    To be honest, this is all a revenue game, every company website that gets hit hard in the results has to sped lots of $$$$ in adwords to stay afloat. More money for google...
     
  11. Tsmash

    Tsmash Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    743
    Google is taking cues from the government that is so unwilling to regulate them. The US is under the impression that they own the entire world just as Google is under the impression that they own the internet.
     
  12. B. Friendly

    B. Friendly BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    480
    It's because the title is meaningless.

     
  13. assphuck

    assphuck Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    905
    I'll make sure to start another thread titled: "Spintax Erodes Basic Comprehension of English Language?"

    Seriously, if people can't understand the meaning of the title then they probably lack the ability to comprehend what's in the thread. And that would be sad. :(
     
  14. B. Friendly

    B. Friendly BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    480
    But that would be meaningless also. Using the wrong words doesn't indicate a problem with the reader. Over-reliance on Spintax might erode one's ability to write meaningful sentences.
     
  15. ja1myn

    ja1myn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    300
    Regulation isn't the answer. That takes away freedom. Just build quality links. If a competitor does negative SEO on your site, then just overwhelm the negative links with positive ones.
     
  16. assphuck

    assphuck Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    905
    Let me guess, English is not your first language. Is that why you noted the title of this thread is meaningless?
     
  17. kvmcable

    kvmcable Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Occupation:
    24 year business owner - old school dude
    Location:
    KFC - BW3
    Google and I are at war and I've been working night and day to compensate and do battle. I think any webmaster that believes Google is an ally is a fool.

    Unlike many here, I've been doing this stuff way before Google. I remember the first time I heard the word Google and thought that has to be the most asinine name I've ever heard of. Sounds like baby-talk; google da da.

    I'm not saying that to brag, my point is kick them in the balls. The only person or website Google has defeated are the ones scared into submission. In my e-commerce niches Google has replaced my number 1 spots I've owned for years with Amazon. My websites have always offered better value, pricing and customer service than Amazon.

    I just received a Registered Certified Letter from Amazon saying I'm in violation of my contract with them that I signed 5 years ago when I thought I might want to list on Amazon. Here I think I'm being sued by them for some copyright or trademark issue and all the letter says is I'm in violation of my contract and I have 30 days to start listing my products on Amazon or they're cancelling my agreement. WTF - they've been begging me for years to follow trough and list on their site but now they're threatening me?

    Recent competitor research has me targeting Amazon since they took my #1 spot and Google has some wild notion that I'm going to pay them for Google shopping. Study the SERP for eCommerce terms and see Google (as well as Yahoo and Bing) has done exactly what they told webmasters they'd penalize for. They've flooded the "above the fold" of the SERP page with ads showing pictures and prices. On some pages you are almost at the fold to see the #1 or #2 spot ranked page now.

    I've already adopted a new plan to tackle the Google advertising spam issue by changing my titles to included price and meta descriptions to include a good sales pitch and toll-free number. If Google wants to flood the page with pricing from competitors they let me throw my price up there too. Better than that let me throw my price up there with a toll free number and yank buyers right off that page!

    Bottom line is kick them in the balls. If you're competitively priced, offer good customer service and actually answer the phone when it rings then take your #2 SERP spot and advertise all the jewels. Google shopping is going to look pretty ridiculous when SERPs have lower pricing in the titles and toll free numbers in the descriptions right under those suckers paying for ads. I've already tested a few SERPs and it's almost comical to see Amazon, eBay, Competitor ads filling the top of SERP pages advertising higher prices and pictures and my #2 link is beating their price by 20% with a toll free number for orders.

    Remember this. Once customers discover those are paid ads the clicks will diminish. It is a webmaster fact that 80% of internet researchers (shoppers) will not click on paid ads. Don't let those ads discourage you if you're in the eCommerce business. Customers will go back to the SERPs. If your SERP link shows a better price and better sales pitch in the meta description then you'll beat Google at their own game. Those ads don't have anything but a picture to try and sell them. You have a 66 character link (about) and 160 character meta description area to make your pitch. You should be able to beat those paid advertisers every way of Sunday if you do it right.

    Good luck.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2012
  18. redrubies

    redrubies Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Location:
    USA
    It reminds me of the great deal of money that Montsanto pays various people in government to be "consultants" and on committees about food regulations. Makes me sick. This world is going to hell in a hand basket.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  19. B. Friendly

    B. Friendly BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    480
    So maybe someone could explain to me how Google's Link Warnings are "Designed" to Force More Reliance on Search. It makes no sense to me. If they didn't send warnings, then people would search less? If they searched less, what would they do instead. How does the average Google user get forced to use search because some spammer somewhere got an Unnatural Link Profile warning letter. The two have nothing to do with each other. On the one hand, Spammy links get found by Google and they do "something" about it, and on the other hand searchers use Google to get relevant search results.

    More scary noises by Google, less spam, higher search relevancy, more people CHOOSING to use Google.

    I see no "force" here. I see spammers being "forced" to deliver higher quality content, and making a lot of ranty, anti-Google statements, some of which are justified. But letting spammers manipulate the search results at the expense of search relevance and at the expense of other website owners with higher-quality, more-relevant sites doesn't somehow increase "freedom". The entire title is completely meaningless, and the OP seems to have put effort into avoiding that simple statement and making some clarification. Other people post tangential remarks in the thread, but none of those make a connection between warning letters and somehow forcing people to do something.
     
  20. Scritty

    Scritty Elite Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    4,496
    Occupation:
    Affiliate Marketer
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    Yeah - monopolies com in UK or anti trust laws are being nudged here for sure.

    Ironic because Google is just one massive paid "link farm", with almost a monopoly, looking to ban anyone else who dares to be exactly what they already are.

    Scritty