On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:16:31 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [ canadafred ] on Sunday 19 March 2006 01:04 \__
>
>> "Borek" <m.borkowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:op.s6mvryr326l578@xxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>http://wap.oa.yahoo.com/raw?dp=rssnews&u=ap/20060317/ap_on_hi_te/google_lawsuit&rn=tech
>
>
>Victims of their own success. *smile*
>
>
>> I suppose this is a dilemma that exists of which Google must face every
>> day. To ban automatically when it detects "black hat" SEO practices and
>> risk the exclusion of a few legitimate web sites or to ban a web site once
>> in a while to make a statement about the power that it actually can have on
>> a business' bottom line. I would prefer the former although the latter
>> seems to have a positive effect as well.
>
>
>I fully agree. Any site that makes use of prominent keyword stuffing (no
>matter how subtle) should be banned overnight. The site will then have some
>time to 'clean up' and be re-included. When crossing that fine line again,
>Ka-boom! Automated banishment, again; even with an intentional lag or
>monetary penalties. We take this approach when people get disconnected due
>to virus issues at the university. Fines and delays for putting the network
>in jeopardy and wasting staff's time. Otherwise, people do not protect
>Windows or migrate to more secure platforms.
>
>I guess the impact of such a move, however, would involve an outcry and maybe
>even chaos and Google apathy (like Pirillo's 'Googlefasting'). Think of the
>headlines that appeared when BMW (in Germany alone) got blacklisted.
The problem Google has is that if it catches a big well-known company,
someone with the stature of a world-renowned brand, spamming then it
can't ban it for any effective length of time without diverting people
who might reasonably be expected to be searching for it in quantity to
go instead searching for it to other engines. While they're there they
may well find themselves searching for other things too and end up
liking it so much they stay there. I believe a variant of the same
principle can explain why sites like the obviously spam-laden
rob-james.com/ and similar sites currently survive in Google's index,
it's in a highly specialised and consequentially limited section of
that index (table magician, etc.) and if you took all the spam sites
out of it you would arguably have hardly anybody competent at the
trade left (you guys can go look at the code not just on Rob's site
but on other major players for yourselves to verify this). This would
mean that, again, searchers for the term seeking greater variety from
the search results would be forced to go to other engines and, again,
once there they may well decide not to come back.
Banning BMW for the brief period that they were gained Google a few
headlines, but I would think that's all, I haven't noticed the indexes
magically clearing themselves of spam. Oops. Bad choice of words,
maybe.
BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/ashleigh-manor/index.html
kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Gifty! Shiny! BB!
|
|
