What happened with the leaked Google manual?

Advertise on BHW
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
just ran thru the docs- basically make everything vital- vital this and vital that- might work
 
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.
 
without seeing the doc, but from what others are saying, it sounds as though it's just the Lionbridge guidelines for URL rating.
 
shadowedsniper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
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.
 
gman280d said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lionbridge is notorious for firing people randomly right after a great quality review. They're a fucked up company.
 
So is the google docs link what the original link was or are they different
 
PDRMTKG said:
Lionbridge is notorious for firing people randomly right after a great quality review. They're a fucked up company.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
lancis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
i have it and its not its nothing new ... if you know what happen to seo these days...
 
bk071 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol they ripped off the logo of xbox in that image on the homepage.
 
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
 
So by the looks is not by google, but why was it removed from here?
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top