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

How Expedia Buys Its Way To The Top Of Google

nenadseo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–164 of 164 posts

Re: How Expedia Buys Its Way To The Top Of Google

#161

Post by gress »

sokoloff wrote: post #158
gress wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google had a monopoly and exerts market power over the internet. They legally do have a responsibility to the public. I'm getting pretty tired of the attitude that they have no responsibility to anyone other than those who buy advertising from them since it's blatantly false.

I don't think you're using the word monopoly correctly here. Google clearly does not have a monopoly on search.

Google certainly has a monopoly on search, which is why it is being investigated for its practices by the EU. If I am using the word incorrectly, then so is the EU, but since the term is defined by policy, that isn't possible.

If you think the word monopoly means that there is precisely zero competition, then you are not using the word as it is used by economists, governments, and the law.

Monopoly is defined by effective competition, barriers to entry and market power. Google qualifies.

Re: How Expedia Buys Its Way To The Top Of Google

#162

Post by Achorny »

pknight wrote: post #3

This just adds to the list of why to hate Google. Basically if you are either a big brand or a spammy company or have a nimble operation, you can afford to do grey & black seo. If you are a small business/ up and coming company white seo practices are the safe choice.

I read the article, and obviously Google isn’t as good at filtering out overly optimized anchors as they claim. But I don't understand how this favors big brands over little ones (other then the fact that big brands probably have more money to throw at people to write the overly optimized anchors in the first place)?

Re: How Expedia Buys Its Way To The Top Of Google

#163

Post by davemel37 »

davemel37 wrote: post #41
hkmurakami wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most hilarious example I know for black hat seo is in japan, where expired domains for congressional candidates get bought up by these spammy companies for their link quality. (The Japanese govt pages have high page quality, and link directly to these candidate domains, thus giving these candidate pages high link quality status in google's eyes. The candidate pages become info-spam-blog pages that peddle things l…

google resets PageRank on expired domains.

I just found this recent thread on this topic, specifically related to Google penalties on domains that expired.

http://www.seroundtable.com/google-old-penalties-expired-dom...

It seems like old bad links can hurt an expired domains rankings.

Re: How Expedia Buys Its Way To The Top Of Google

#164

Post by judk »

swombat wrote: post #157
judk wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want people who need grants to buy your service. Instead of convincing Google that your website is the best place for grants, you write a bunch of (good!) articles about grants and then place house ads for your paid service. Observations: 1. As a product search experience, that is still horribly broken. 2. It is still good for the web, incentivizing you to create quality content.

I'm not sure where the "place house ads for your paid service" idea is coming from? We haven't paid for advertising.

That's what a house ad is: and ad for yourself in your own product.
Post reply on HN