I recently received an article about Google Bombing (can't remember where from now, unfortunately). Essentially, it was about sites being penalized by Google. A couple of things that were suggested that would penalizes a sites' listings in Google would be constantly checking on a sites' keyword ranking and doing continual site:domain.com searches on Google. Surely this can't be right? After all, if Google is penalizing these types of queries, it would be simple to continually do them for a competitors website, thus destroying their rankings.
I was under the impression that Google Bombing was something else entirely? That is, manipulating SERPS through linking schemes and not constantly checking one's rankings. My 2 cents is that the latter is not something Google could possibly penalize people for.
@ egdcltd: That is not Google bombing. Google bombing consists of artificially modifying the search engine results. Just search for "failure" and you will see
That is funny. I was familiar with "misserable failure" but that's even better. Glad to moore up there as well.
Found the article I was looking for. It was this article http://www.directorygold.com/more/article/article_303.html which I read, embarassingly, on my own site.
LOL. The first two listings is a perfect representation of how utterly depressing and insipid America's current political climate is. I wonder how that happened? Any guesses anyone?
A LOT of bloggers teamed up and started building links with the anchor text "failure" or "miserable failure" to these pages. Who says SERPS can't be manipulated? It's just easier when you're not alone.
Just a big google bomb... thousands of bloggers using that anchor text and managed to change the serps
And geting Google Bombed by Google is when Google almosts crashes your server from doing so much crawling at once, especially when you got a lot of domains on it!
Actually, I posted before you both times. This is so amusing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb#Accomplished_Googlebombs
To the unamed person who gave me the negative rep with the following read the rules yourself first next time:
True, but it's within the rules. Design never was my strong point. This has got a little off topic from what I was originally was posting about. Has anyone read the article, and what are their opinions?
You should read about forum sigs, they don't help at all so there really isn't any use on spamming your links all over the place. And about the article, since the site looks like if it was done by a 5 year old I just hit the back button. Unless it comes from a serious source I really wouldn't pay any atention to it.
Then what do you call it when Google designs a bot that can't tell the difference between an original site and a second site that rips off the original site's content, so stoooopid Google penalizes the original site for duplicate content and bans the poor webmaster from the index?