Just thought I would mention, If we are to be de-indexed by Google for participating in a co-op advertising network that "Takes away from G's adwords revenue", I for one think we should consider some form of legal action. It is one thing for G to ignore the advertisements, it is another to "ban" a site for running advertising. This is the equivalent of repression of free speech. Definitely unconstitutional. Especially given the virtual monopoly they hold on search. The publicity would just be worth it...Given the number of site participating, we could certainly afford to fight it in court. Give G a big PR black eye and in turn steer more searchers to other engines leveling the playing field. Maybe we could actually get an answer from them on the "repression of new sites" they are doing while we are at it. No one likes a bully. Just my two cents. Cheers
Just as a side note.... it has nothing to do with free speech. Constitutional rights are citizens protection from the government, not from search engines or business or any other group, just the government. Not that I disagree with the flavor of your post wendy
I was kinda thinking of this today as well. There just seems to be something inherently wrong when an entity holds all the cards and all of the secrets, not disclosing any information, yet they go one to promote two services with the same goal in mind for webmasters -- to get on the first page. One supposedly "organic and natural and FREE" and the other adwords $revenue$ driven. Seems to be a conflict of interest somewhere. They could have at least put the services under two different companies. With all of the proprietary secrets, it's like ME auditing MYSELF at TAX TIME and reporting to the government my findings based on MY SECRETIVE method. Or like me winning in no limit poker by SAYING I have two Aces, but not showing them. You are just supposed to believe me. Who would ever know the REAL reason behind the sandbox theory anyways?
Google, like virtually every company their size, will do what they think is best for business. If de-indexing sites for whatever reason is bad for their search engine (which it may well be in some cases), they're going to gradually lose their market share on online searches to other SEs which include those sites - and with those lost searches is all the AdWords revenue that goes with it. I'm not an expert in US law, but I imagine Google also have a right to free speech, and that would include the right to not include all sites in their search results (but as I said, this might mean losing searches to Y and MSN etc.).
Google can ban you whenever and for whatever reason they want. They are a company, they have their own algo. They don't have to tweak it to suit your needs. They don't have to release information unless required by business laws (now being a public company). While your at it, go force KFC to release their "secret herbs and spices".
I dont expect Google to take actions to anything related to SEO or advertising companies that take things seriously and ethically. We discuss things here, but always recommend the ethical ways. Google should be glad with us.
Very well said. When you sign up for adsense, you agree to their terms of service. That's it. If you don't like the TOS, then you are free to end the business relationship. It is most definitely NOT a free speech issue.
lol... my issue was specific to a co-operative advertising network that is free for all members. If google is targeting those members and not banning as that would mean lost PR - delisting pages that participate in the co-operative advertising, that is an issue of free speech. Again, if the concern by google is the affect on a proprietary algorithum, if they are savy enough to identify and delist sites, they have shown in doing this they very well could have set the advertising to be "ignored". Delisting is in essence an attempted chilling affect on reciprocated free advertising done across any network, which in effect silences all members. Pay for advertising doing things our way or face our wrath. It is a dangerous precedence and is no different then the repression G is applying with impunity to new sites. Again, it is one thing to ignore something that has legitimate and proven benefit for marketing/advertising regardless of what G "believes" the intent is. It is another to descriminate against new sites simply because they are new and must market accordingly. This appears to be a dangerous pattern with Mr. Google. There is without doubt a lack of balance within the power structure and when this happens, we have authoritative rule by one entity. This is an issue Cheers
Google can do whatever they want. They can de-index all pages that use the color green if they feel like it. You have no 'right' to be in Google's index.
lol....Google cannot legally decriminate, whether a private or public entity, but nice try <edit> just and FYI to any posters.....I'm not mad....this is just a general discussion so please don't think I have taken it personally. All my sites are hugely sandboxed so I get like 200 to 300 referrals a month from G..this is no loss for me given I recieve 20K visitors a month and growing. This is for discussion purposes only for the analysis of how U.S. law may apply to this type of activity by Google..... So, please don't beat me up for this post thinking I am complaining and being a "sore loser" kind of thing. I am trying to look at the bigger picture as your sites could be next. At some point, IMHO, fair play must come into force. At some point, someone must take on Goliath. <end edit> Cheers
Well... let's think on the other side though... when you see some ads on some site... you say nothin and close your eyes. but when on the same site you see... "join here to rank higher on Google" ... that's another issue and I don't think they'll tolerate that... Maybe something like "free advertising" will work better... but to work better it would need some form of redirection, so G won't trigger any filter So no matter what anyone says about G TOS and that co-op isn't breaking the rules there... in the end it's not moraly right. We are doing here something to trick G for free... And even if G has nothing against this... Who can say if a site is bad neighbour or not?? Maybe the guy is not running any Co-op ads on it, but maybe it's pointing some ads to it (you can get banned by G for that) So I'd say... if you want to have no problem with this issue... no PR0 site should be allowed in Co-op... even better... no site with PR<4 should be allowed... I lost a PR3 site.... donno if it was co-op or not... but i surely didn't do anything else wrong about it
I may not be a legal expert but I'm pretty damn sure they can do exactly whatever they want within their secret algo. Are you going to sue MTV or the Top 40 if your record doesn't make it to the top 10? Do you think they are suppressing you? I think you're on a mission impossible. To continue the KFC analogy, they decided not to put meat burgers on the menu. Google decided not to put unnaturaly linking and poor-content pages on their menu. They can do whatever they want and show their customers whatever they want. You have the right to exercise your freedom of speech, but as said before, not the right of Google index inclusion. Google is in no way obliged to have your or any coop participating site in its index.
You win...I give...lol not worth discussing....as moot anyway. I'm not crying over the G de-index...crying over my coming lost co-op weight....lmao!!! Cheers
Pulling the 'free speech' card out for selective issues can be dangerous. I mean, under that logic, one could argue that the coop is against free speech because it doesn't allow for Rx, adult sites, etc. (btw, I am NOT making that argument, I am just fine with the restrictions). In this case we call it quality control. Out of curiosity, where did you see that google was banning coop sites that ran adsense? If they had a problem with it, woudln't it make more sense that they would just discontinue the adsense account? wendy
It's a Restraint of Trade issue. "Illegally interfering with free marketplace participation." As owner of web sites, we should be free to choose our advertisers without fear of penalty, retribution, or bias from an outside or competing source. That's what makes it possible for NBC to advertise their Nightly News on the Fox News Channel. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that an attorney with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in their eyes might investigate the possibility of a class action suit.
No, I didn't see an adsense connection, I was rambling on....didn't get much sleep last night as I was up until 4am checking rankings....so my mind isn't the clearest right now. Like I said, where I am concerned, I wasn't horribly concerned with G issue other than the coming lost weight, which is bitter pill to swallow for really doing nothing but advertising my site. This de-index = no co-op weight = no advertising = no benefits = might as well leave the co-op. All forced by Google. This is what I find wrong. That the control they have over something that is none of their business and with one swipe they can now double hurt my business interest. First they weigh my new sites down with a "sandbox" repression forcing me to find alternatives and now they have destroyed this...and this is what I am VERY bitter about. No matter how hard I try they still screw me yet someone doing everything from doorway pages to hidden text has no problem ranking in the top ten. What a load of shit. Cheers
Oh TOPS30... This would only be the same if KFC was the only joint in town and we as a society relied on them for sustenance (their secret recipe just happened to be the only thing the human race could live on...). Sure there would be the lesser Popeye's, Kenny Rogers's, etc, but they were few and far between - not acceptable. When an entity gets to large (i.e., Microsoft) the gov't needs to get involved to maintain some sort of checks and balance. So... When standing at their door one morning along with hundred of others in line, KFC finally opens up and you find yourself gazing at a employee who is looking at you wryly. He arbitrarily picks the guy in front of you to get a meal for free and the guy in back of you. Sorry, he sticks his hand out because you have to pay $100. What? You say... He says, "Oh well, that's how it goes, pay or be hungry and try again tomorrow!" Why? You say... "I'm not telling. You have to guess. See you with your benjamin tomorrow..." That's Google. P.S. Oh, by the way...this is what is happening. Because for new companies like mine who have expanded and hired more and more people to absorb the increased traffic have to now do something when the traffic suddenly and unexpectedly no longer comes through -- like lay off people who rely on you to feed themselves and their families.
Yeah but you're not paying for inclusion in their index. You used to get free traffic. Now you don't. Not their crime is it.
You do have to pay through Adwords if you want to get on page one and you are de-indexed -- my site/pages aren't de-indexed, but I do feel for those that may be.