Blogs and pagerank March 4, 2002 10:09 AM Subscribe
The Google Time Bomb- how weblogs are increasingly influencing the algorithms of Google's search engine. It looks like fun could be had with this. (From Microcontent news)
In the meantime, all your search are belong to us. Somebody set up us the bomb!
Wow. Really cutting edge stuff here. I am, of course, being sarcastic.
posted by ColdChef at 10:21 AM on March 4, 2002
Wow. Really cutting edge stuff here. I am, of course, being sarcastic.
posted by ColdChef at 10:21 AM on March 4, 2002
For the phrase--let alone the link--Microcontent News--you have my gratitude.
posted by y2karl at 10:23 AM on March 4, 2002
posted by y2karl at 10:23 AM on March 4, 2002
feeling listless [point proven perhaps -- I get roughly three hits a day from someone who has simply googled the word 'feeling']
posted by feelinglistless at 10:25 AM on March 4, 2002
posted by feelinglistless at 10:25 AM on March 4, 2002
This is more scary and potentially damaging. Unless you've hung out in the SEO circles, you have no idea how crazy those folks are about crippling search engines. They'd render any search site useless to get their pay-per-load casino ad on every search.
I didn't want to talk about my critical IP findings much because it would reveal a huge potential for abuse. I kind of see how weblogs have a special place and are bufferred from standard SEO hacks. If you wanted to take over a search term via google, you'd first have to start a blog (or many blogs), write enough good stuff that others link to you (and those people must be trusted links, with many links directed at them), then someday unleash some google bombing words, and then your effect is only temporary.
Still, the potential that weblogs could sell their space in google to the highest bidder goes along with all the problems I have with the SEO community. They seek to make the index worth less to users, in order to gain a small advantage for themselves. It's the most basic kind of selfishness, and not being considerate to the information needs of users. I don't care if you make a good widget, and want to be the number 1 search result for widgets. Stop wasting energy trying to hack a perfectly good information resource and just make the best widgets you can. If your widgets are really that good, people will eventually discover them and link to them as the best widgets.
The paid google bombing via weblogs thing reminds me of speculation a couple years ago in the weblog community. If prominent weblog owners are the digital mavens of this new age, how long would it be until companies were sending free products to authors in order to receive a favorable review and link to their company? How long would it be before bands would send CDs to people that talk about digital music on their weblogs? Looks like this google-bombing thing is a close equivalent.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:33 AM on March 4, 2002
I didn't want to talk about my critical IP findings much because it would reveal a huge potential for abuse. I kind of see how weblogs have a special place and are bufferred from standard SEO hacks. If you wanted to take over a search term via google, you'd first have to start a blog (or many blogs), write enough good stuff that others link to you (and those people must be trusted links, with many links directed at them), then someday unleash some google bombing words, and then your effect is only temporary.
Still, the potential that weblogs could sell their space in google to the highest bidder goes along with all the problems I have with the SEO community. They seek to make the index worth less to users, in order to gain a small advantage for themselves. It's the most basic kind of selfishness, and not being considerate to the information needs of users. I don't care if you make a good widget, and want to be the number 1 search result for widgets. Stop wasting energy trying to hack a perfectly good information resource and just make the best widgets you can. If your widgets are really that good, people will eventually discover them and link to them as the best widgets.
The paid google bombing via weblogs thing reminds me of speculation a couple years ago in the weblog community. If prominent weblog owners are the digital mavens of this new age, how long would it be until companies were sending free products to authors in order to receive a favorable review and link to their company? How long would it be before bands would send CDs to people that talk about digital music on their weblogs? Looks like this google-bombing thing is a close equivalent.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:33 AM on March 4, 2002
'who deserves to die?' Apologies for the kind of self link, but I just noticed that I've got the google top spot for this term, and thought it was funny, or scary, or something.
From my personal experience I've been surprised at the level of influence that blogs have on rankings. I have no proof of this at all, but I do get the impression that the number of links has more effect on google rankings than the trustworthiness/prominence of the sites that provides the links, i.e a link from 10 low standard blogs may beat a link from CNN. Given how easy it is to set up a blogger account, some might start to see this as a potentially effective marketing approach.
posted by RobertLoch at 11:13 AM on March 4, 2002
From my personal experience I've been surprised at the level of influence that blogs have on rankings. I have no proof of this at all, but I do get the impression that the number of links has more effect on google rankings than the trustworthiness/prominence of the sites that provides the links, i.e a link from 10 low standard blogs may beat a link from CNN. Given how easy it is to set up a blogger account, some might start to see this as a potentially effective marketing approach.
posted by RobertLoch at 11:13 AM on March 4, 2002
Being the number one result for "cheesy porn" makes me very proud... Not sure what SEO stands for, but are the people that pursue referral fee scams enough of a community like the weblog world in order to harness the interconnected network effect?
posted by machaus at 11:29 AM on March 4, 2002
posted by machaus at 11:29 AM on March 4, 2002
If prominent weblog owners are the digital mavens of this new age, how long would it be until companies were sending free products to authors in order to receive a favorable review and link to their company?
You don't think this hasn't already happened?
Didn't you (along with a bunch of popular bloggers) receive a free Tivo in that giveaway a year or so ago?
posted by crunchland at 11:32 AM on March 4, 2002
You don't think this hasn't already happened?
Didn't you (along with a bunch of popular bloggers) receive a free Tivo in that giveaway a year or so ago?
posted by crunchland at 11:32 AM on March 4, 2002
Interesting point Matt on the product placement, but would this really be wrong? If a weblogger has a loyal (I hate using that word) readership and the people who read the site are interested in the weblogger's opinions and insights, I think that they would expect an honest review of a product. If you got the new NSYNC/Backtreet Boys duet album (shudder the thought) and hyped it up as being a groundbreaking effort in original vocal styling, I think it would be a pretty transparent shill. If you got a book from an unknown author that you thought was worthy of praise, I don't think that would necessarily be evil.
posted by jonah at 11:37 AM on March 4, 2002
posted by jonah at 11:37 AM on March 4, 2002
crunchland: You don't think this hasn't already happened?
I've never heard of it.
Didn't you (along with a bunch of popular bloggers) receive a free Tivo in that giveaway a year or so ago?
there was a contest that a bunch of people entered, is that what you're thinking of?
jonah: If a weblogger has a loyal (I hate using that word) readership and the people who read the site are interested in the weblogger's opinions and insights, I think that they would expect an honest review of a product.
more importantly, if any weblogger started giving favorable reviews to bad products, their readers would stop trusting their judgement in that area. they might still come to read the weblog, they'd just know to ignore the music reviews.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:49 AM on March 4, 2002
I've never heard of it.
Didn't you (along with a bunch of popular bloggers) receive a free Tivo in that giveaway a year or so ago?
there was a contest that a bunch of people entered, is that what you're thinking of?
jonah: If a weblogger has a loyal (I hate using that word) readership and the people who read the site are interested in the weblogger's opinions and insights, I think that they would expect an honest review of a product.
more importantly, if any weblogger started giving favorable reviews to bad products, their readers would stop trusting their judgement in that area. they might still come to read the weblog, they'd just know to ignore the music reviews.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:49 AM on March 4, 2002
what does SEO mean?
posted by rorycberger at 12:20 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by rorycberger at 12:20 PM on March 4, 2002
Search engine optimization - I think.
posted by RobertLoch at 12:25 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by RobertLoch at 12:25 PM on March 4, 2002
At the time it seemed that the Tivo contest/giveaway was a possible attempt at viral marketing. It all happened rather quickly and the concentration of winners was quite unlikely.
Of course, if there was any complicity on the part of certain members of the community then, yes, their credibility would be shot.
posted by xiffix at 1:39 PM on March 4, 2002
Of course, if there was any complicity on the part of certain members of the community then, yes, their credibility would be shot.
posted by xiffix at 1:39 PM on March 4, 2002
SEO=Search Engine Optimization.
I agree that SEO folks can be dangerous. I work with a few of them. Not only could they care less about usefulness of the search engines, they're usually completely willing to screw over the usability and design of the site they're trying to push up in the rankings. A lot of it stems from clients not knowing what they're buying or having no idea what their site should do for them. They expect to be at the top of Yahoo!, Google and MSN and are willing to take their business elsewhere if that doesn't happen.
Yahoo! can be bought, so that makes Google Target #1. I've seen some nutty stuff set up to get up in its rankings, from 200-character title tags that have little to nothing to do with a page, irrelevant content hidden in code and hundreds of pages set up for no other reason than cross-linking. Not all of it works, but throw enough crap at a wall and sooner or later some of it's going to stick.
posted by mrbula at 1:40 PM on March 4, 2002
I agree that SEO folks can be dangerous. I work with a few of them. Not only could they care less about usefulness of the search engines, they're usually completely willing to screw over the usability and design of the site they're trying to push up in the rankings. A lot of it stems from clients not knowing what they're buying or having no idea what their site should do for them. They expect to be at the top of Yahoo!, Google and MSN and are willing to take their business elsewhere if that doesn't happen.
Yahoo! can be bought, so that makes Google Target #1. I've seen some nutty stuff set up to get up in its rankings, from 200-character title tags that have little to nothing to do with a page, irrelevant content hidden in code and hundreds of pages set up for no other reason than cross-linking. Not all of it works, but throw enough crap at a wall and sooner or later some of it's going to stick.
posted by mrbula at 1:40 PM on March 4, 2002
From the article: Blogrolling Google Bombs have yet to hit the weblog scene. When they do, they could become the next generation Google Bomb, with a much longer impact than link-blogging bombs.
Our very own Zora Neale Hurston has already paved the way: blogroll links spotted at cheesedip and VM.
posted by rory at 2:15 PM on March 4, 2002
Our very own Zora Neale Hurston has already paved the way: blogroll links spotted at cheesedip and VM.
posted by rory at 2:15 PM on March 4, 2002
Being the number one result for "cheesy porn" makes me very proud...
ha.. that's nothin'. i'm still at the top for gay amish porn.
posted by lotsofno at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2002
ha.. that's nothin'. i'm still at the top for gay amish porn.
posted by lotsofno at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2002
lotsofno, you may want to preface that by saying that you have the top unsponsored result. You little ranger, you!
posted by machaus at 3:47 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by machaus at 3:47 PM on March 4, 2002
If prominent weblog owners are the digital mavens of this new age, how long would it be until companies were sending free products to authors in order to receive a favorable review and link to their company?
This happens to me every once in a while. I've gotten free music, books, and software from companies or people that want me to link them and write reviews of their stuff. If I like what they send me, I'll write up a little something and link to them. If I don't like it, I generally don't bother with a link or write-up.
It's something I take pretty seriously, otherwise I'd be looking at some serious lack-of-trust issues with my readership if anyone found out I was fudging things for money. In the end, it's up to each individual weblog writer to determine their own policy regarding that sort of thing, just like in other media. And it's up to the reader to make up his/her own mind about whether a source of information is trustworthy or not.
posted by jkottke at 4:59 PM on March 4, 2002
This happens to me every once in a while. I've gotten free music, books, and software from companies or people that want me to link them and write reviews of their stuff. If I like what they send me, I'll write up a little something and link to them. If I don't like it, I generally don't bother with a link or write-up.
It's something I take pretty seriously, otherwise I'd be looking at some serious lack-of-trust issues with my readership if anyone found out I was fudging things for money. In the end, it's up to each individual weblog writer to determine their own policy regarding that sort of thing, just like in other media. And it's up to the reader to make up his/her own mind about whether a source of information is trustworthy or not.
posted by jkottke at 4:59 PM on March 4, 2002
So, webloggers could counter this phenomenon?
(Hmm, the link might be on the blink. It's about the successful efforts of the CoS to keep critical sights out of the top returns on Google.)
posted by NortonDC at 5:30 PM on March 4, 2002
(Hmm, the link might be on the blink. It's about the successful efforts of the CoS to keep critical sights out of the top returns on Google.)
posted by NortonDC at 5:30 PM on March 4, 2002
Well, one tries their best to get recognised.
posted by Zora Neale Hurston at 11:55 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by Zora Neale Hurston at 11:55 PM on March 4, 2002
The TiVo thing was an essay contest that a bunch of us entered and won. The news that it was easy to win was passed out via blogs, and that is sort of the connection. I think a some of us even had TiVo's before the contest. So there was no "foul play" there.
posted by bump at 6:47 AM on March 5, 2002
posted by bump at 6:47 AM on March 5, 2002
If your widgets are really that good, people will eventually discover them and link to them as the best widgets.
that's not necessarily true. depending on the business space, there could be thousands of useless pages ranked highly merely because they've been around longer, they contain the keywords/phrase and there isn't a lot of inter-linking or linking to these types of sites.
They seek to make the index worth less to users, in order to gain a small advantage for themselves. It's the most basic kind of selfishness, and not being considerate to the information needs of users.
is it selfish that my dad wants his site to be high on google? sure. he and the 20 or so other people who write articles for the site get referral business from it. is he seeking to making the index worthless or being inconsiderate to the users information needs? no. his site is informational, it may not be complete or well-rounded, but it's much more useful than the 100 or so realtors who are ranked above him.
google bombs, free product reviews and advertising are all close to equivalent in their viability as income sources and their potential for abuse. i find it hypocritical to condemn the use of one form while using another. condemning abuse, otoh, is a different story.
posted by brig at 11:11 AM on March 5, 2002
that's not necessarily true. depending on the business space, there could be thousands of useless pages ranked highly merely because they've been around longer, they contain the keywords/phrase and there isn't a lot of inter-linking or linking to these types of sites.
They seek to make the index worth less to users, in order to gain a small advantage for themselves. It's the most basic kind of selfishness, and not being considerate to the information needs of users.
is it selfish that my dad wants his site to be high on google? sure. he and the 20 or so other people who write articles for the site get referral business from it. is he seeking to making the index worthless or being inconsiderate to the users information needs? no. his site is informational, it may not be complete or well-rounded, but it's much more useful than the 100 or so realtors who are ranked above him.
google bombs, free product reviews and advertising are all close to equivalent in their viability as income sources and their potential for abuse. i find it hypocritical to condemn the use of one form while using another. condemning abuse, otoh, is a different story.
posted by brig at 11:11 AM on March 5, 2002
In fact, there was a stiulation in the Tivo contest rules: "Contest open to amateur writers only. Professional writers (persons who have been paid for their writing ability and/or performance in the past one year) are not eligible." I think that technically eliminated a lot of people that ended up winning anyway.
posted by aaron at 12:31 PM on March 5, 2002
posted by aaron at 12:31 PM on March 5, 2002
This stuff has been happening for a fair while...Lia at cheesedip.com tried to get a Googlebomb going for my old blogspot effort back in January, which is like 17 years ago in dog years. I must say that I was glad very few joined the party, as the link phrase was to be "massive inferiority complex"...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:40 PM on March 5, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:40 PM on March 5, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
So this all seems to have a very temporary effect, at best.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:18 AM on March 4, 2002