Under the Radar?

I don't think your analogy is accurate either. I did not start Google and I don't know what they are/are not trying to do. Every day Google looks more and more like Yahoo to me. They both started as search portals, now you can get just about anything you want there branded with a Y! or a xooogle. But, that is besides the point.

Search "manipulation" was going on long before Google even existed. Google knows and knew then what they were "getting into". I don't think you really have a good grasp on what Google "is all about" or what "Google's goal" is. If their only goals were to provide an unchanging algo and enabling people to find information, then they would never have gone public.

 

Google's end goal is to make a bigger profit.

 

It seems that some folks are making a big deal out of nothing, newspapers and television stations trade advertising inventory everyday and have done so for about 50 years.

It is simply a barter instead of a cash purchase and there is nothing wrong or illegal about the concept.

 

amen brutha

 

its the ethical seo brainwashing, kicking in

its like the catholic church if it feels good it must be wrong

 

LOL, this thread has gone in a totally different tangent than I was expecting. It is so funny to watch.

 

If Shawn can out rank Ebay for the term ebay, then there's definitely something wrong with google's algo rather than Shawn's ability to manipulate the engine. Google constantly tweaks their algo to make the results relevant, and as publishers, we will likely adjust to those tweaks. It's a constant back and forth tug of war. There's nothing wrong with the network, nor is it illegal, but I would say that if you are putting time into developing a site and pushing links to the site, chances are the site you are pushing links to has to have the information people want, or at least links to get people to said information. It's not like I'm making a site on real estate, but pushing anchor text with "Free Porn" and pushing thousands of ads with that anchor text.

 

That means nothing, many results for Google come in ahead of Google itself, I have had SERPs that came in number 1 for Google terms and Google was under those results.

So to say that it is manipulation is incorrect or to say that something is wrong is wrong.

 

It's one thing to outrank ebay or even google or anything else for secundary search terms but for example to rank higher than ebay for an "ebay" only search it's a completely different thing!
If Shawn can do it (he seems to be getting close!) it's great for him and it's not his fault or problem - it's Google's.

 

I raised this earlier at the end of a dead thread:

On site like (I think it was) SEOroundtable (and http://www.free-ringtones.tv/), they list the coop links under a header saying 'Sponsors'.

Down the list of links you'll see 'eBay'. But it's Shawn's site.

Isn't that infringment of some sort of their brand, more or less claiming they support SEOroundtable/free-ringtones.tv? I know it's more their problem than the coop network but just wanted to point it out regardless. You can give it any header, even 'don't click these shit sites!'. All I'm saying is that people should perhaps think a bit longer about presenting the links.

 

Like I said before, I have written articles on Google that come up in Google searches about Google before Google pages, there is nothing wrong with Google in this regard.

There are many examples of this in the search index and we have seen it over the years many times.

Why do you say it is wrong or something is wrong?

Should Google list only Google pages when someone inquires about Google?

Should they only list eBay pages in the top 100 results when someone researches eBay?

 

Do I believe that Google should penalize for paying for links? No, as it can be a legitimate way to advertise. But Google may see it a different way. Do I believe that Google should penalize for bartering links? No, as it can be a legitimate way to advertise. But Google may see it a different way. Google probably does not yet have a way to determine that the *votes* obtained via the coop are not the kind of *votes* that Google is looking for - you know the kind - where webmasters think a site is so good that they want to link to it. So for now...these advertisements will probably be counting as *votes*, but I think that if Google could devalue these advertisements, they would, as they are not likely to fit into Google's definition of a vote. Yes, these are legitimate ways to advertise - but in terms of SEO, and especially in terms of how Google views votes for a site, these would be the kind of thing that I think Google would want to devalue if they could. So I see and understand the point of keeping it under the radar, although it is likely too late for that. One way that G may have to eventually devalue them is the non-permanence of the links. I think that could be a trigger point in the future. Regardless of whether or not anyone sees the validity of the ads, I think Google will eventually, IF IT CAN, get rid of the seo benefits seen by it. Just some thoughts...

 

That could never happen Shawn, newspapers and magazines would not be able to publish an article and they are all online now so it is not even a possibility.

 

You misunderstood. I didn't say eBay should be the only domain listed when someone searches for anything related to it. What I'm saying is that from a search engine point of view, eBay shouldn't be ranked below other sites if someone is searching for ebay only as a search term. That's just an example.

It's ok if your site comes higher than google for something like "google jokes" or "how to rank high in Google" for example. It's not ok if your site comes above google when someone searches just for "google". (Obviously, you would think most people won't go to google.com to search for "google" - but amazingly, I read that it happens! )

 

That's a pity! If something like that could be done, it would prove again that as long as search engines exist, SEO will exist. (I'm saying this following some recent Google comments when they said again that there was no way in which someone could manipulate Google results)

It doesn't matter how complicated/sofisticated a SE ranking algoritm is - there will always be ways in which people will learn what to do to make a site/page rank higher.

 

It also has a lot to do with links coming from or the page being linked as part of Digital Point I would venture to say.

Zamolxes, remember the search for "search engine" or "search engines" on Google where Yahoo and other engines were coming up before Google?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=search+engine+&btnG=Google+Search