TIP:The short answer is yes… but only if you are a moron.

Today Barry Schwartz of SE Roundtable has made a case that Google is de-indexing free directories because he read some post at WebmasterWorld where a nobody SEO with no facts, no data and no evidence claimed that 50% of free directories were deindexed by Google.

Read the rest of this entry »

NB: I wrote this post back in December 2006, but have released it today as it showcases another area (besides PR penalisation) where Google is being hypocritical. i.e. The area of content.

Now, before I get to the meat of this post, I better be very careful not to tread on any toes. I must avoid a legal wrangle with Goliath as I do not have $2Billion in spare change to settle with a slap on the wrist (and I most certainly do not want to spend any time in a Federal pound me in the ass prison.

This all started late last year as I was making a cynical private remark to one of the more respected members of the Info Vilesilencer Forum regarding search engine terms. I decided to reveal the top 10 search terms for the last 7 days of December for Info Vilesilencer (IVS). When I got to #10 I was suprised to find the keyword little-melissa sitting there. When I checked I found that IVS wasn’t even in the top 100 for that keyword. Yes, you are thinking what I am thinking. Some sicko’s have far too much time on their hands for what’s in their hands.

To allay any fears that I might be hosting any “inappropriate material”, the keyword little-melissa is present in a harmless joke in the Humour & Jokes forum. Nothing sordid or untoward there, just an appropriate, and semi-censored, use of the f-word.

Ok, so what’s so interesting about this keyword? Well clearly sicko’s are searching on it (present company excluded), and on Page 6 of Google as I was browsing through the listings trying to find exactly what number I had been posted at to get so much interest I noticed this juicy Google tidbit:

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

You guessed it, Google had listed a site that contained Child Pornography (as the notice says) and the Internet Watch Foundation complained, Google was notified, and the listing was promptly removed. Clap, Clap! Does anyone else see a problem with this method of removing inappropriate content from the internet’s most used search engine?

A quick scan of “Other recent C&D’s” shows all 5 are Child Pornography, and all 5 relate to complaints made to Google. It’s been suggested in the past that the internet’s biggest directory, DMOZ, supports child pornography. I am not suggesting they do, however some very credible points are made in that thread, leading to the pertinent question – Why aren’t these giants of the internet stamping this inappropriate material out?

What I find unbelievably hypocritical about the whole thing is that people can have websites banned/penalised by Google for trivial SEO misdemeanours, whilst Google itself is hosting images that can only be described as absolutely pornographic. I’ve tried to join the dots on that, and it doesn’t meet up. Sorry, but wasting time banning someone that’s worked hard to try and get their site in some sort of position to be competitive, whilst others put up Child Pornography sites that dodge the radar is a misaligned focus methinks.

Back to the hypocrisy. Surely, by seeing that Google freely hosts pornographic images, people are encouraged to put up their own websites to make a buck from the countless searches they would get on that material? Why is there no age verification on standard adult material anyways?

p.s. On another datacenter, the jokes forum comes up on page 2 for the little-melissa keyword, that must be the listing that’s pulling all the interest (pardon the pun – heh!).

I had this blog post sitting in draft for most of this month, but after the second round of PR penalties and bloggers telling it like it is, I’ve been inspired to make it live – if for no other reason than my own amusement

This is Major Tom to Google ground control. We have a problem.

In the washup of penalising sites selling pagerank; penalising sites selling paid-text-links; and penalising sites for just linking (paid or not) Google seems to have missed the worst offenders. Themselves.

On any given day on the Info Vilesilencer site, the adsense ad-block above the fold, which exists in site-wide on every page except the home page, is advertising Guaranteed Top 10 Rankings & PR6 Links For Sale (see image above post), and just about every seriously outlawed type of paid link you can think of…

Hang On! I hear the crowd chant, wasn’t this penalisation supposed to stamp this stuff out?

Errr, It would seem not. Well not for Google anyways. Instead, many hardworking altruistic sites have been tagged with the Google-doesn’t-like-you-brush whilst those that spend money on Adwords, seem to have gotten off scot-free.

So what? Well, consider this for a moment. The paid text link penalties which were issued recently have never officially been sanctioned by Google (to my knowledge). Oh sure, Matt Cutts has made mention of the danger of paid-text-links both earlier this year and as far back as 2005. But, who reads Matt Cutts blog?

SEO’s do.

Sorry Matt, it’s true, no one gives a flying f**k how many steps your pedometer counted last week or what current “gadgets” you think are cool. It’s the SEO’s that read and comment on your blog, and its the same people that are being “bitchslapped” by G. Bear in mind that these are the very same people that generated the buzz on the web, which in turn lead to Google being crowned King in the first place. (you can almost hear the stock market boys yelling “Sell! Sell!”).

So. SEO’s are gonna get hit, who cares right? Ok. Well, what happens to the unoblivious Mom and Pop sites, who have never heard of Matt Cutts, don’t know what SEO is, and who use these paid-text-links to relevant sites within their network, to pay their bills such as webhosting?

Worse still, what happens to the ones who don’t currently engage in paid-link buying, but who see adsense ads, like those on Info Vilesilencer and probably thousands of other sites, which actively encourage paid text link and pagerank selling and buying and who are now seriously thinking about taking it up? Would it be ok to assume that more people will think it is ok to buy PR, than not, simply because more people will see adsense ads promoting it, than will read SEO websites saying you shouldn’t?

The bottom line is that Google has created a massive problem by penalising some and not all – in particular themselves, the worst offenders of the lot. There is now a massive divide, with some sites 3-and-more PR points below their peers. Until Google rewrites the disparity I believe that many will begin to move on from Google’s hypocrisy, its popularity as the current number 1 search engine will wane, and it will be our next Altavista.

DMOZ appears to have got with the times and installed their very own DMOZ blog.

If discussions concerning DMOZ on major forums like Digitalpoint are anything to go by, then this could be one of the stickiest blogs on the web, and one of the most heated. There is a lot of anti-DMOZ sentiment in the webmaster community, particulary pertaining to alleged corruption between editors and webmasters looking to “buy” their way into a DMOZ listing.

I think the blog is a brilliant idea to open the communication channels between DMOZ staff and the general populous and will improve the transparency of the directory and hopefully shed a spotlight on any corruption that does exist, and stamp it out.

DMOZ has been seen by many to be a dinosaur of a directory that is losing relevance. Through frequent activity of their blog the DMOZ team has the opportunity to demonstrate that this simply is not true, and get back to cataloguing and showcasing some of the best sites the web has to offer.