Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google is Breaking the Internet

jeremypalmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 306 posts

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#121

Post by malandrew »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #72
jamesbritt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When SEOs break the quality guidelines of all major search engines (not just Google), then they might need to do some work to clean things up if they get caught. This still seems to be missing the point. As I understand it, sites that are not doing anything in the realm of SEO can get penalized because of the actions of people outside of their control. If the wrong sorts of sites (however defined), sites outside my c…

"If the wrong sorts of sites (however defined), sites outside my control, are linking to my site, why am I penalized, and why should the burden be placed on me to go fix it?" Well, if a website was link spamming then it seems appropriate that the site should attempt to clean up the spam they made before they can rank well in Google again. Otherwise it's not fair to the other websites that have been trying to rank fai…

It seems like you are heading down the path where black hat anti-SEO on competitors becomes an increasingly viable business model. For example, company A competes with company B. They are cutt-throat so they pay a blackhat SEO firm to generate obviously spammy links for their competitor, not in an effort to bring up their own ranking, but to tank the ranking of their competitor relative to their own. At the end of the day, you do not know the intent of a link. Discounting a low quality link is reasonable. Penalizing the site it points to is not.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#122

Post by rmrfrmrf »

dreamfactory2 wrote: post #73
jamesbritt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When SEOs break the quality guidelines of all major search engines (not just Google), then they might need to do some work to clean things up if they get caught. This still seems to be missing the point. As I understand it, sites that are not doing anything in the realm of SEO can get penalized because of the actions of people outside of their control. If the wrong sorts of sites (however defined), sites outside my c…

Frankly a bit worrying that Matt Cutts doesn't seem to get the fairly straightforward point (to the rest of us) being made here. Or he does and the criticism stands. Either way not so great.

Put the pitchfork down; he's just giving non-specific answers in response to non-specific situations. For all we know, the two domains in question are `bestquickdietfatloss.com` and `levitracialisfreedietpillscanadamexicoblog.com`, in which case it would be correct of Google to indicate that the author's link is linkspam.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#123

Post by mcintyre1994 »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #58
buro9 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been complaining of this problem for a few years now and it's getting worse. I now receive several new "link removal" requests per day (I receive many more repeats of old removal requests). Yes, Google isn't sending these so you could argue that Google are not directly to blame. But, the merchants in question who are sending them are doing so because Google has made them believe they are (or will be) subject t…

It's not a huge surprise that some sites which went way too far spamming for links will sometimes go overboard when it's necessary to clean the spammy links up. The main thing I'd recommend for a site owner who gets a fairly large number of link removal requests is to ask "Do these requests indicate a larger issue with my site?" For example, if you run a forum and it's trivially easy for blackhat SEOs to register for…

Is HN an example of a site that makes it trivially easy to sign up and drop a link on the user profile page?

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#124

Post by Myrth »

notatoad wrote: post #65
jamesbritt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a DMCA takedown notice sent to me on behalf of a website owner who didn't want me linking to their site. How does that even work? How does the DMCA apply such that I can invoke it to tell you to stop linking to my site? I'm guessing it doesn't, but if you're at the mercy of a hosting service that doesn't actually understand the DMCA you're in a jam.

The way the DMCA works ISPs or any other service hosting third-party content must comply with every takedown notice immediately, regardless of it's legitimacy, if they want to continue to enjoy the protections of the DMCA. (meaning, unless they want to accept liability for the copyright of every piece of content on their servers). So yes, it absolutely does work that way: you can send a takedown notice to anybody for…

Someone needs to send a couple of millions DMCA takedown requests from random sources to random targets, to make this problem visible.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#125

Post by jonknee »

ForHackernews wrote: post #99
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

higherpurpose, nowhere in the original article did it say that Google said the link was bad. This was a request from a random site (we don't know which one, since the post dropped that detail), and the op can certainly ignore the link removal request.

> higherpurpose, nowhere in the original article did it say that Google said the link was bad Yes, it most certainly did! From the article: > Apparently Google convinced them, via their [read: Google's] Webmaster Tools portal, that the link looked “unnatural”, and that they should use the [Google] Link Disavow Tool to discredit the link. (emphasis added)

You emphasized Google, but you should have emphasized apparently, because nowhere in the actual email is the OP's conspiracy theory about Google mentioned (or even the word Google!). It's quite likely they noticed a penalty and are just going through all their back links to find shady content.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#126

Post by malandrew »

noir_lord wrote: post #98
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

higherpurpose, nowhere in the original article did it say that Google said the link was bad. This was a request from a random site (we don't know which one, since the post dropped that detail), and the op can certainly ignore the link removal request.

> Apparently Google convinced them, via their Webmaster Tools portal, that the link looked “unnatural”, and that they should use the Link Disavow Tool to discredit the link. This is pretty typical of 2014 Google. To be honest these days I pretty much regard Google as one of the banes of my existence, you guys hold so much power and influence so much of the internet the rest of us have to work around you, I'm currentl…

Exactly. Instead Google should suggest that they investigate the link and appeal the way it was categorized if the search engine was wrong in its classification. Anything less is tampering with the natural way links should work.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#127

Post by kreeben »

ronnier wrote: post #15

I own http://ihackernews.com which reformats HackerNews for mobile phones. I had a DMCA takedown notice sent to me on behalf of a website owner who didn't want me linking to their site. My hosting provider gave me 24 hours to remove the link or else they'd cancel my account. The owner of the link claimed that their Google rankings were dropping because my site, iHackernews, linked to their site. With this, they were…

What a terrible hosting provider you have. Who are they?

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#128

Post by magicalist »

noir_lord wrote: post #98
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

higherpurpose, nowhere in the original article did it say that Google said the link was bad. This was a request from a random site (we don't know which one, since the post dropped that detail), and the op can certainly ignore the link removal request.

> Apparently Google convinced them, via their Webmaster Tools portal, that the link looked “unnatural”, and that they should use the Link Disavow Tool to discredit the link. This is pretty typical of 2014 Google. To be honest these days I pretty much regard Google as one of the banes of my existence, you guys hold so much power and influence so much of the internet the rest of us have to work around you, I'm currentl…

Yes, truly Google's rules held no sway over the SEO world until 2014.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#129

Post by ForHackernews »

jonknee wrote: post #125
ForHackernews wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> higherpurpose, nowhere in the original article did it say that Google said the link was bad Yes, it most certainly did! From the article: > Apparently Google convinced them, via their [read: Google's] Webmaster Tools portal, that the link looked “unnatural”, and that they should use the [Google] Link Disavow Tool to discredit the link. (emphasis added)

You emphasized Google, but you should have emphasized apparently , because nowhere in the actual email is the OP's conspiracy theory about Google mentioned (or even the word Google!). It's quite likely they noticed a penalty and are just going through all their back links to find shady content.

Sure, this is all hearsay and second- and third-hand information, and the article is really sparse on details.

> It's quite likely they noticed a penalty...

Yes, and where would they have noticed that penalty?

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#130

Post by rmrfrmrf »

dchuk wrote: post #74
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just Google that recommends to avoid link spamming. For example, at http://www.seroundtable.com/bing-links-knowledge-18535.html you can read where Bing said "You should never know in advance a link is coming, or where it’s coming from. If you do, that’s the wrong path." When SEOs break the quality guidelines of all major search engines (not just Google), then they might need to do some work to clean things u…

"You should never know in advance a link is coming, or where it’s coming from. If you do, that’s the wrong path." That is an absolutely ridiculous rule of thumb to follow. What exactly is wrong about doing something like: 1) Having a good article on your site about a certain topic 2) Reaching out to other site owners who have similar content and asking them to link to you as an additional resource 3) Getting that lin…

Can I, the potential reader, chime in? I hate this tactic because it results in lower quality content getting further up the search rankings. If I'm a gardener, I want the blogs of well-respected gardeners who have real-life community standing and mutual respect to link to each other. What I don't want is two amateur gardeners with crappy writing skills who have made side-deals to link to each other getting on the first page of a Google search.

The situation you mentioned can start out as innocuous but quickly become downright shady. Hmm, you're asking them to link to you, but what do they get in return? Oh, here's a thought, you tell them you'll link to them as well if they link to you, that way you'll both get a ranking bump! Totally fair and win-win for everyone except for the people who are trying to get quality information.

Post reply on HN