Live data from Hacker News

Google is Breaking the Internet

jeremypalmer.com

41–50 of 306 posts

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#41
There is this omnipotent master somewhere in the cloud. His power is large, but his ways are unknown. To please the Lord of cloud, strict rules have to be followed. Rules, that, when not followed, will cause the cloud Lord to strike you down with vengeance. Unfortunately, the cloud Lord is intentionally vague about these rules.

Some people have taken upon themselves the task to discover the rules that please the cloud Lord. In the process these priests have found a large number of arbitrary rules that have to be followed strictly. Breaking any of these rules is a reason for the cloud Lord to banish you to the dark corners of his empire - or so the priests say. For only a small fee the priests will give you a glimpse of the rule list that might you good standing with the cloud Lord. It may work, or it may not, because the cloud Lord works in mysterious ways.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#42

I talked about this phenomenon recently on This Week in Google with Leo Laporte and Gina Trapani: http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-google/248 Skip to 4:15 in to listen to the discussion. Note that there are two different things to keep in mind when someone writes in and says "Hey, can you remove this link from your site?" Situation #1 is by far the most common. If a site gets dinged for linkspam and works to clean up…

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 to some penalty if these links are not cleaned up.

I run forums and all of our links are natural links. For the first year I would look at every link that was asking to be removed and found that, without a single exception, every link was created by a trusted person in the community helping to answer a question by someone else. Every link I checked was natural and high quality, none... literally none... were suspicious or spam.

It may be that these merchants did involve SEO crews who did create a lot of spam links, but those are not on our site.

What's more worrying is that merchants feel so overwhelmed (numerically there are a lot of links to deal with) and in such a state of panic about this (they fear a bad placement could have significant effect on their business) that now they're hiring people to clean up SEO mess, and those people create 4 problems:

1) They have no clue which links were the result of SEO, so they just request every link they can to be removed.

2) They send these removal requests from emails like someone@web-marketing-group.org.uk when the links point at www.watches2u.com so it is impossible to verify as a publisher that the person requesting link removal represents the merchant to be de-linked (and #1 means that they don't enter into dialog as they can't, they're sending tens of thousands of requests).

3) The removal notices seldom have enough info to be acted on. One forum I run has several million posts, and the removal request may simply be "You've linked to blah.com, please remove it". OK, more verbose and almost identical to the OP's example, but not a useful pointer to the page or comment that contained the link.

4) If, as a publisher, one fails to remove a link, then their automated removal request scripts will now spam the publisher routinely with the same request.

If you can finally get a conversation that says "Do you represent the merchant, have you got a full URL to where the link exists on our site, and are you sure this isn't a natural and good link?", then every merchant has so far agreed that the link should stay.

But... for all of that, the effect is very real for the publisher: We get spammed evermore, from unaccountable sources that we don't know has a link to the merchant, asking for links to be removed that are actually very good quality and with good context and content.

It's a mess. A mess for which the merchants may be to blame (for originally doing SEO, and now for handling removals so badly), but this mess is definitely due to Google creating the situation.

My policy now: I put link removal requests in my spam folder.

That is how I regard it, this is just a new type of spam that Google has created. We never engaged in SEO or supported anyone doing so, we took an aggressive stance against spam, but as we have content that links elsewhere we are being spammed constantly with these requests and we carry the burden of the problem.

PS: The example cited above was just the top one in my spam folder, the link can be found on this post in the form of an img tag: http://www.lfgss.com/thread17604-52.html#post2119173 , it's the photo of a watch posted on a horology thread within a cycling forum by a long-standing member of the community with high karma. The request for link removal did come from an @web-marketing-group.org.uk address. The request will be ignored. We don't do "nofollow", but it's irrelevant as that isn't valid on img tags.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#43

I talked about this phenomenon recently on This Week in Google with Leo Laporte and Gina Trapani: http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-google/248 Skip to 4:15 in to listen to the discussion. Note that there are two different things to keep in mind when someone writes in and says "Hey, can you remove this link from your site?" Situation #1 is by far the most common. If a site gets dinged for linkspam and works to clean up…

> If you read the original post closely, it's clear that this is a site asking for a link to be removed--the quoted email isn't from Google. Did you read the article? The reason that site is asking for the links to be taken down is that they believe (apparently based on feedback from the Webmaster Tools) that it will please the Google Gods. Spammy links and irrational fear of spammy links are both unnatural linking b…

"Spammy links ... are both unnatural linking behaviors that result when sites are more concerned with pleasing search engine algorithms"

ForHackernews, we say in our quality guidelines to "Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines." If the SEO whose email was quoted in the article had followed that advice, they wouldn't be in the position of trying to clean up spammy links after getting caught spamming.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#44
post #33
post #30

This has happened to me too. A client who bought ads on my site wanted the links pulled so as not to make Google mad. That Google would think me a spammer is very very broken.

If you were selling links Google isn't that far off...

So you're saying all ads are 'paid links', except I presume Adsense ads. That sounds fair and reasonable.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#45
post #13

From my understanding Wikipedia adds nofollow to stop incentivising people from constantly trying to sneak links into Wikipedia to boost SEO. Any ranking system that gave any value to links would suffer this problem. nofollow is a necessary evil if you allow untrusted sources to publish content on your site that contains links. It's a way of saying "I don't vouch for these links in the same way I vouch for other link…

That's correct, I came here to make that comment, whereas he's implying that Wikipedia did it to preserve their own ranking, which is not true.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#46
post #3

I understand the point. But you could be friendly and agree to remove the links in questions since they seem to believe it will harm their business. Not doing so "out of principal" may effect others as Google believes your links are low quality.(although it sounds like their SEO company is mostly to blame for their problems).

Why? Why should anyone remove outbound links simply because the destination _thinks_ they are harmful? And even worse, if the destination is in fear of some other _third_ party which _might_ think they are harmful?

In the bad old days of the Internet, web sites would complain if you linked to them, because they though they had some sort of a right to determine who linked to them. After court cases, etc. the issue was resolved. And now this.

If Google really thinks that a link is illegitimate, then it should just ignore it in its algorithm.

Please don't reply to this if you don't fully agree with my points.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#47
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…

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.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#48
post #33
post #30

This has happened to me too. A client who bought ads on my site wanted the links pulled so as not to make Google mad. That Google would think me a spammer is very very broken.

If you were selling links Google isn't that far off...

I'm selling complete ads, that certainly contain links, just like Google does. They are contained in posts clearly marked as sponsored posts. These are not link farms, spam, or payed links. Advertising should not be a crime.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#49

Jeremy Palmer is a SEO marketer, who also appears to be doing some scammy affiliate thing. Google considers his links low quality because they are low quality.

This alone doesn't mean there is no problem here. A spammer has power, or at least perception thereof, to lower legit site's ranking? Not nice.

Re: Google is Breaking the Internet

#50
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt, this does not address whatsoever the point being brought up. And in case you missed it, I will try to cite it as clearly as possible here: This is a case where google wants people to mold the internet according to what their current incarnation of their algorithm says the way it should be. Rather than google trying to mold its algorithm to understand the internet, natural links vs. spams, and their respective a…

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…

They're not talking to you about link spamming.
Post reply on HN