Anti-Google claims: to reply or not?
Last week, Aaron Wall had a guest post on Search Engine Land that originally had the headline “How To Buy A #1 Organic Search Ranking On Google.” Then today I was reading Aaron Wall’s guest post on Google Blogoscoped where he makes a couple unusual claims, such as that “SEO = spam” in Google’s opinion (simply not true). Aaron has been doing so many anti-Google posts since around July that other people started to notice several weeks ago.
Suffice it to say that in my opinion there is another side to Aaron’s story. I’m on the fence about whether to talk about the specifics of what’s going on with Aaron. What do people think?
Reply to Aaron Wall or not?
Update November 19, 2007: Thanks to everyone that gave feedback about this. I added a comment that talks about the situation some from a search engine viewpoint, without mentioning specific sites by name.
shoe$ Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Aaron is a super smart and a very passionate kid. I have no doubt there is more to the story =P. The back and fourth really does not matter. It might help him with some book sales but I think someone like Aaron google would want to definitely follow up with and see what the core issue is. Just my 2 cents
Marc Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
These go to eleven.
netmeg Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 10:44 am
If you start down this road, do you really have the time and energy to stay on it? because believe me, it will get worse before it gets better (IF it gets better)
Patrick Altoft Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Aarons main gripe with Google seems to be the fact one of his sites received a penalty without anybody giving him a reason.
If you want to stop the anti Google posts why not just tell everybody (or Aaron in private) why the site got a penalty?
While we are on the subject why not start confirming penalties on more sites? Would it do any harm for you to say “Your site has a penalty for too many affiliate links” or “Your site has a penalty for selling links”.
Why keep everybody guessing all the time?
Matt McGee Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:07 am
If you’re going to reply, Matt, it’s worth noting that Aaron’s hardly the only writer/blogger/person with Google in his cross-hairs lately. You’re right that he’s been hitting G hard for several months, but his is not the only voice out there.
That said, I do think transparency is just about always the best option, so if that means you join the conversation, go for it.
Tim Linden Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:16 am
I’d say respond to the issues, but don’t respond to individuals.
Brian Mark Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:17 am
I don’t really think his claims are worth responding to, but the snarky comment had to get my vote.
David Payne Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Don’t respond to him specifically . . . don’t reference is blog, etc. Instead, write blog posts that state the truth and touch upon some of his points without referencing them. This way the misinformation is stopped but linkbait is not achieved by those spreading misinformation.
JLH Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:20 am
You just know where the voting is going to go on this one. I haven’t read all of his bashing, but I’d be interested in seeing some answers.
I’ve done my share of Google bashing, but it usually comes from duplicity of statements, do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do kind of things, but very rarely on the quality of Google’s results (except for the unearthly wiki-love). Do I get a response? No, of course not, I’m an unknown, but when someone who is well known makes claims I almost feel like you have to run some sort of damage control.
I’d caution against too much passion and just sticking to the facts which are easily verifiable by other parties. Using super-secret google spam fighting tools to generate an example may be right, but if it’s not something your readers can click on to verify some of the argument may get lost in the black-box googleness.
My guess is that the majority of bashing out there comes from either ever changing policies or just plain confusion on the issues. You’ve become/are the leader (like it or not) in describing policies and straighting out confusion with regards to Google, so it only makes sense that this would be the forum that would have the most chance of getting the word out. As apposed to a private letter, unattributed sourced story by SEL, official blog post etc.
Good luck, either way you decide to handle it.
Andy Beal Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:25 am
I’d just contact Aaron privately and see if you can work out the details.
Halfdeck Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:27 am
SEO industry, as a whole, is anti-Google and will forever be anti-Google - not out of spite but simply due to conflict of interest.
Even if you are 100% right, whatever you say, 90% of the people in the search marketing industry will disagree with you.
I’ve questioned his marketing tactics (see http://sphinn.com/story/12344) recently but I doubt he will veer away from his present course.
Hart Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:28 am
“I believe if Google took some action, it was probably reasonable,” - a lot of people would agree with this in general, but it would be really nice to know what the actions were, and better yet, what were the reasons behind them. Not necessarily against one particular site, though. With all the guessing about G’s algorithm updates and new policies since late September, it won’t hurt to hear something official from Google
Farhad Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:29 am
I can’t believe how easily you got suckered into linking to that relatively rubbish article!
Todd Mintz Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:32 am
By responding to Aaron, you are responding to lots of folks…which is in line with your “outreach” to the webmaster community. I vote yes.
Ross Dunn Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Hi Matt, I think it is worth replying once to Aaron with a clear and concise answer to his claims and then leave it at that. If you figure the followup after that point is worthwhile then great.
As for the other notes on this post… I firmly agree that Google needs to be more transparent. Google’s card holding does seem to imply that SEOs are the enemy. But really a properly optimized website is designed only to deliver the best possible content for users AND search engines such as Google to index and hopefully rank well. If it has excellent content what is the problem? If you shared more often why particular sites are getting penalized I don’t see how that can hurt Google… it only furthers the pursuit of a better index.
Anyway that is my two pence. Thanks for asking
Don MacAskill Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:38 am
These go to eleven.
Michael VanDeMar Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Ok, just out of curiosity, why are you claiming that the SEL post is actually anti-Google? That just seems like good insight, regardless of what his sentiments might be. Was it edited, and said more before?
(I haven’t read the rest yet, just noticed that one first)
fathom Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Who’s Aaron Wall? …some guy that got booted out of the military.
Why’d you change the advance search commands a while back? 90%+ of your targeted users didn’t use them. Isn’t that the correct answer?
99.99% of the available market doesn’t listen to Aaron Wall.
Michael VanDeMar Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Oh, and Matt, by the way… if you wanted to guest blog on Smackdown for this (since, you know, the rules about being friendly are lower there than here), you just let me know
Justin Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:50 am
You really should respond because a lot of techies read Aaron Wall and highly respect his opinions (not just SEOs btw). He’s a major influencer, totally ignoring him looks stuck up and doesn’t help your cause. You should address his concerns with sincerity (not poke fun at him). His posts aren’t usually making fun of anyone, they are serious critiques. They deserve a serious response, if any.
I used to be 100% pro Google but I have to say that his arguments have started to make me wonder what is going over there. Help Google defend itself. I really want to like Google, you do some truly awesome stuff!
Sebastian Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I vote yes. A well balanced response would help many Webmasters, and perhaps even Google.
Tropical SEO Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I would definitely like to hear specifics. Concrete examples with facts are soooo much more helpful than general guidelines.
E Lawrence Welch Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Hi Matt:
Aaron has his opinions and facts. You have your opinions and facts. What would be the harm in responding to Aaron’s posts? If you have the energy to see it through - I believe more good will result than bad. I’ve been following Aaron Wall and you for quite some time now. I have high opinions of both of you. However, if your are unable to freely express yourself (i.e. Google restrictions) - then it might not be worth the effort. Regardless, any way you look at it - Aaron Wall is highly respected among many internet communities - not just SEO - he’s a great guy and he’s helped a lot of people. His Google posts aren’t going away soon. Also, regarding your third option - Aaron is not in need of the great publicity or link bait - he’s “set for life” as it is - so that’s not even an issue.
Thanks for the opportunity to give my two cents.
Regardless of what you decide with Aaron - one thing you must do is try to “clear the air” regarding a lot of the “issues” buzzing around Google. Nobody likes to feel as though they are being treated differently - simply because they’re small..
Aaron (No, not that one) Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:57 am
If you do choose to engage in this type of debate, can I get equal time if I implicate you in a wacky conspiracy theory of my own?
“The appearance of video on Google SERPs is just a toehold for Google’s nefarious plans - Matt Cutts is trying to classify all non-YouTube content as spam, as part of Google’s push for an all-video Internet.” That’s off the top of my head. I can come up with some doozies.
How about a conspiracy between Internet supervillains? “Matt Cutts in secret negotiations to bring DMOZ meta editors into Google’s anti-SPAM team, to hand-edit the SERPs”.
And then we can start “Round 2″ with a follow-up post where I misrepresent everything you said in response to the original, or say that I got a private email from you that I can’t discuss… beyond noting that you confirmed everything I said and that Google would fire you if you tell the truth in public.
We can have so much fun…
Swade Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:58 am
As a non-geek struggling with my own blog, which has suffered a massive drop in Google juice earlier this year (due to a change from Movable Type to Wordpress) and is trying to understand why, I’d love to hear anything from Google people about SEO. Aaron may be a thorn in your side, but he’s the one person so far who’s actually given me some help in realising why my site was struggling and what to do about it - re-examining my URL structure and reconciling my new WP URLs to what they used to be with MT - which I’ve just undertaken to do.
He’s been helpful to me, an average blogger, when answers were hard to come by. I think he deserves the response.
Dave Dugdale Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Perhaps at the next conference you guys can fight it out at one of the Webmasters Radio parties.
Matt Cutts Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
I appreciate all the different viewpoints in the comments. Thanks, everyone. fathom, let’s keep the quality of discourse high — please don’t go down the path of insults or I’ll remove your comments.
grasshopper Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
matt, i think you should respond however *you feel* is most appropriate. allowing your response to be dictated by consensus goes against the grain of participating in an honest conversation.
Adrienne Doss Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
I’d love to see a response to Aaron’s complaints. Snarky or polite … I don’t really care (although snarky is a hell of a lot more fun). The most important thing to me is that you’re as honest and as detailed as humanly possible. As Patrick Altoft said above, “Why keep everybody guessing all the time?”
Mike Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
As a number of folks have already said, it’s not just Aaron who has a rather negative view of all things Google right now.
I’m with Patrick Altoft on this one. I think the more information you feed back to webmasters either directly (i.e. via Webmaster Tools) or through your site or, perhaps more importantly, an official Google site, the less Google bashing there’ll be.
As Matt McGee says above, transparency is the best option. A lot of the current Google bashing - mine included - is based on an interpretation of what is happening because there is no official response from within the Plex.
Sebastian Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
I would prefer if you would investigate why he did not get a notification in Google’s webmaster central. Revealing that would help a lot Webmasters out (maybe even him) and could improve Google’s service.
Win-(Win-)Win-situation. Sounds good, dosen’t it?
Voom Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
I would say respond, but to the general SEO crowd. Don’t say you are responding to any one person…
Swami Atma Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
I do some SEO part time for my own non-profit site. I’m a subscriber of this blog, SEOmoz and Aaron Wall’s, and a few others. I try to learn as much as my time allows.
Overall I like Google a lot and appreciate the Webmaster central and analytics and other tools.
I felt uneasy at the virulence of Aaron’s posts but I would like to hear your side of the story on his repeated attacks.
I do agree with Halfdeck who says that there is not way Google will totally please the SEO industry. My take is when many sites go down in PR or in the SERPS some others go up.
If this brings a better search experience for the users then everybody wins except aggressive SEO experts.
Danny Sullivan Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
I thought Aarons post on GB pretty much spelled put the backstory that he had a domain he invested in that got wiped out, which also seems to have sparked more Google criticism on his SEOBook blog than in the past. Bit maybe theres more and if so then I’d would like to see Aaron himself put it out there. That said he still often makes some valid and insightful comments regardless of the whatever particular issue he has with Google. FYI I may comment more but am on my phine right now and also can’t see my punctuation keys well. For the record as editor, I added one bit of qualification to the end of his column at SEL and then further qualified the headline that’s the () part you see after Matt contacted me with concerns and because I aslo felt some further qualification would help the piece. I made an edit to the lead to better clarify he was talking about Google and Ill further explain the changes and why since its now being raised as an issue. I don’t think any of Aarons intent or commentary was hurt by these and as a column, I think he’s fine offering up his opinions in the same way I would welcome Matt doing the same despite his own inherent biases to Google.
j Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Why would you not respond? Are you going to go with SEOmoz tactic/suggestion not to respond to allegations?
Bruce Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
I’d go with Linden and Payne .. respond but without giving him the link juice in return. That is probably exactly what he is fishing for. I do not know him, have read some of stuff, bought his ebook and read half of it, but it seems to me that there is a lot of Google bashing that is just going for link bait and trying to get at the top on Sphinn. I can’t say that for sure he is just going for link bait, because maybe he believes every word of what he says … I do know I like to hear both sides of every story.
ses5909 Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
I wouldn’t mind seeing a response as well. I understand how it can be frustrating when a site isn’t indexed. It happened to one of my sites and after 18 months it is finally getting fully indexed and it’s an above the board site.
Matt, I’d also like to ask you to join me in a podcast! I can’t find your email address so this was the best way for me to contact you. The podcast is for the site listed in my url and you can contact me by email and I will send you more details. This might be a great way to clear the air
-Sara(ses5909)
Michael VanDeMar Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
@Matt,
After reading Danny’s comment, I went back and looked at what you said again:
If you were talking about discussing Aaron’s motives, and had no intention of dealing with any the the facts he stated, then I would highly suggest not going that route at all. If you were just going to argue the merits of his claims, then of course by all means do so.
Joel Lesser Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
At the center of the issue is “penalization without explanation”. We all know that hundreds of factors go into rankings. When a site gets obviously slapped within the most powerful search engine on the planet, it stings. No explanation makes it hurt even more.
To make matters ever worse, self proclaimed experts muddy the waters by publishing misinformation and speculation based on opinions and not facts.
Google could avoid issues such as this by further improving guideline explanations.
For example, in my line of business, we help webmasters maintain link building campaigns with editor based software. Over the past three months, we have received countless number of questions regarding Google’s recently updated guideline regarding “excessive reciprocal linking”. You and I know what “excessive reciprocal linking” is but newbie webmaster does not. Google should explain the difference between “full duplex link exchange” and “editor based link exchange for the end user”. Explain why you state that “excessive reciprocal linking” is discouraged. We all know that Google updated the guideline on link exchange to include the word “excessive” but explain why this occured instead of letting the pundits make up their own explanations. In my opinion, there is lots of room for improvement when it comes to explaining Google’s webmaster guidelines.
I don’t necessarily agree with Aaron’s method of communication but its obvious he’s exasperated by the lack of understanding as to why his site(s) are penalized. I understand his frustration as I get calls every day from webmasters who are trying to make sense of all of the misinformation that floats around on today’s web.
If Google wants to avoid issues like this in the future, Google should strive to do a better job of explaning to webmasters the reasons behind the guidelines. Lord knows the big G has plenty of resources to make it happen.
theGypsy Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Hey there dude… long time no chat….
I don’t comment here all that often and I am sure you understand the reasoning. I am sitting here, tired, grumpy and jaded having a few pints and saw your post in my reader and thought ‘ that’s a weird post’.. and here I am.
As some one mentioned already, A-Wall (AWOL?) isn’t exactly the only (high profile) bloke to be ranting and I am sure you’re aware of this. You are also quite aware that you could respond in many ways outside of polling the masses to make up your mind for you. The last time I checked you mantra is that this is YOUR space and not officially the Google ‘spokesman’ page. As such, I can’t see how any of this serves a purpose?
It certainly will be a boon for ol Aaron and replying to it may even spark and entire wave of anti-Google posts among the A-list SEO’s in hope of getting some free publicity for themselves. This opens the door to ‘Matt Baiting’ once more.
What gets me and what made me drop by and actually put in my 2c (Canadian) is that I am pretty sure you know all of this. Regardless if it is the company line or your personal feelings on the matter, simply get on with it. Are we trying to placate AWOL with this? Some publicity is as good as gold and you know it. As far as I can tell, this is just another sonnet playing for the 21st century ‘Google Dance’ and if you’re looking for partners, there is no lack of them out there to do the 2 step with. Bah humbug…
Yours truly and still yer mate… though jaded, Dave…..
Paul S Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Always 2-side to a story, yes. But Aaron is clearly getting his side heard the loudest at the moment.
I can see his comment on t-shirts already, “I am an SEO so I am scum”
J Roland Kelly Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Go jogging, instead. You went out of your way for this guy, and feel a little betrayed… this guy put money and time into something that got destroyed and feels the same way. No need to air out the dirty laundry in public. If it’s personal… go see him, if it’s professional… go jogging and then go back to work.
If you want to address his concerns do so… generally. If you want to make it personal you will have to address each and every one of his complaints. Is it possible? It is worth it?
Geiger Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Matt and fellow readers. I think we need to refocus on some Google’s values. I always assumed one of Google’s rules was “Don’t be Evil” when after checking it really is “You can make money without doing evil.”. It’s number 6 here (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html).
After recently getting into it with Google’s Adwords Support, I’ve come to realize that Google has many policies that they don’t publish and can’t really refer to. A response to Aaron would help everybody’s faith in Google. I also expect Google to take the high road and be open and honest with the community. While Google isn’t compelled to not “be evil” like I once thought, to dispel these “evil” rumors Google should address them openly when opinions get as large of a following as Aaron’s has.
J. Geiger
Max Thing Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Ouch Joel. “Link building campaigns” ? I wouldn’t dare link to anything icky like that!
Anyway, I don’t get it. If one of the all-time great SEO’s gets a penalty/ban/whatever, shouldn’t he know exactly what’s the matter?
And if he doesn’t, does that mean that:
1) He’s not that great a SEO after all (hmmm)
2) Or… his issues were caused by an irrational hand-job or by a new fuzzy algo thingie of some sort.
In both cases, I’d love to read your comments, Matt. Please don’t hold out
Sebastian Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Just by mentioning his name here you helped to sell his few books. I don’t know if it’s worth to make him more popular. All to all everybody can have own option about Google. I’m not a big fan of G too.
Millard Hiner Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I suggest you contact Aaron privately and work out the details.
Will Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
I also cast a vote for letting the posts *ZING*! However, like many have mentioned before me, I think it would be better for Google as a whole to address the issues, not the person. It is not worth the hassle. You should never address the person publicly anyhow. Folks as vocal as he is would likely take offense to it. Just my two cents… Take the high road!
yaph Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Aaron has the right to say and write what he thinks. Free speech should be the right of anyone. If you think you should reply to his criticism, just do it. It’s your responsibility not the one of your readers.
Google aims to regulate the Web and abuses it’s power, that’s what I think.
Michael Martinez Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
This is not really worth public comment. People in the SEO community are going to get steamed at Google every now and then.
Are you going to drop everything and respond to every complaint or are you just giving Aaron some special time?
Frankly, I could care less about his gripes. I’d rather you take on something substantial, like what you’re doing to help Supplemental Results pages rank in queries WHEN THEY ARE MORE RELEVANT than pages in the Main Web Index.
Michael VanDeMar Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
@Geiger - just so you know, you were right the first time, it ’s Google’s unofficial motto to “Don’t Be Evil”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don‘t_be_evil
What you read stems from that.
Ryan Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
I guess the only question to ask yourself is “is this helpful to other users?”
if so, post it.. If not, don’t post it.
Actually… that pretty much sums up all of SEO too.
Philipp Lenssen Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
I’d be happy to quote your counter-statements in a follow-up post.
On a related note, as editor, in retrospect I wish I had handled that post a bit differently. I welcome Aaron’s views again as I think he has some great insight into the US SEO scene, but as editor I think my job would’ve been to ask for a remodeling of one or two sentences which I now think are too personal (instead of highlighting such sentences). Guess I’m still learning what goes into editing guest posts, as I hope to get more, different blogging voices to Google Blogoscoped.
azuka Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Well, maybe people start to write anti Google claims because G never say what the problem is with your site. So, Everybody sees Google like The Big Monster. In fact, I’m starting to believe it, because Google thinks my site is “supplement Content” and It’s out of the search results. But all the sites that copy my content (feed aggregator, sites that copy entire contents, proxy sites) are in first places… MY PLACE! I’m not lying Mr. Matt you can check it with your own eyes…
http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/b808fc89d21a4ef1/109fe39991cee15d#109fe39991cee15d
Best Regards,
azuka
DigMyPage Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
It is a love hate relationships. They love google when sites they are promoting rank well in Google and they hate Google when their sites are not doing well. They have to realize that all sites cannot be on the first page of SERP.
Brent Wilson Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
I’d love to see your side of it. I’m having a hard time grasping the quality of Google’s SERPs right now and would love to hear something from someone who actually works at Google on the state of their search engine.
Harith Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Matt,
No matter how polite and constructive your response to Aaron Wall will be, he is going to continue on the Google bashing path and unethical approach to few issues as this one.
Better to spend your time on posting here on your blog more SEO related posts. Of course some more gadgets posts too
Edward Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Seriously, who is Aaron Wall? I’ve never heard of him. Do you respond to evry taunt or is what this guy says really important?
billse Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
I agree with those who want to know only if it offers insight. It sounds pretty heavy - I think the google / seo relationship may actually benefit (this relationship often appears oddly strained, esp. to those who are adhering to the standards and not gaming).
I
Central Ohio Search Marketing Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
I’m not sure there is much Google slamming in that first article. It just seems like when you have things like the monstrous market share of Google, combined with the fairly secretive method of the algorithm used and the manner in which Google does things like penalizing a site or revoking an AdSense account without ever even contacting the person in question (guilty until proven innocent), this type of thing will ALWAYS be in the back of many minds. I personally see nothing wrong with what Aaron said.
azuka Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
woow…why banned me? =(
Paul McCann Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
As a lot of people listen to what Aaron and yourself have to say, then people like myself who do not know what the specific issue is, and find posts like the above quite cryptic and mysterious then maybe its best to answer in a generic way about the issue and a brief outline to what has been happening.
A lot of people will be considering to take Aarons SEO advice, and reading this post, might think that the information he is selling/blogging is not good, when it may be some of the best out there (it might not of course ;)), and therefore send people looking elsewhere at sites that promote not so good SEO practice.
I think google should be seen to be actively encouraging and being openly transparent with those SEO people who promote good practice and proabably indirectly contribute to the success of google.
Nick - I think the original Nick here. Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Hi Matt,
If you really need to get it off your chest, go for it. But my opinion with a lot of these “top” SEOs is that they just do a lot of stuff to manipulate people. His anti Google rants are probably just a strategy he figured would get him more links. Personally I’m a bit tired of it and would rather you not contribute in spite of loving a good argument. It will only make him more money and not really help anything.
I get the feeling that between Aaron and Rand and the other prominent people in SEO, it’s becoming a kind of in-group. Hell, why don’t you just give me the link instead? I do SEO and I don’t whine about issues. Just go about getting the work done. Responding to these things just encourages more. Let it fail, and his tune will change. Call him or see him in person but don’t bother with e-mail or web posts. There is no way to link bait a phone call unless he records it or something and then posts a transcript.
I’m rambling but basically, it’s all kind of tiresome. Nobody likes being manipulated and at some point people will get tired of this just to have Aaron do another article in 6 months titled “How to use negative comments to game the Google algorithm”.
Google can stand on its own and it’s not your job to counter every single little article written about it. How about some more quality posts on your blog instead? There is a lot going on lately and we’re all kind of blind. It would be nice to have a counterpoint to all the speculation.
Thanks…
uGuX Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
I read Aaron’s blog fairly often — and he’s a genius (he’s getting high quality links — using this linkbait strategy — that he talks about!).
Also, I voted that I’d love to see this argument because this will bring up a fine opportunity to see some new SEO strategies unfold.
azuka Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Uuuppsss, sorry… I was testing… =P Ok, maybe people start to write all these anti Google claims because Google takes actions and never says why. So, Everybody sees Google like a Big Monster. In fact, I’m starting to believe it, because Google thinks that my content website is a “supplement content” and G just deleted my site from its search results. Meanwhile, all the sites that copy my content (feed aggregators, proxy sites, sites that copy entire contents, etc) are in first places… MY PLACE! I’m not lying Mr. Matt, you can see it with your own eyes.
I think you should view the claims… even the machines make mistakes.
Best Regards ^^
azuka
Paul McCann Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Just another thought!
A lot of people are mentioning the transparency and bashing of google from a number of angles and whats the harm in letting people know publicly whats going on so we can all learn from it. Good thoughts I think.
So why does google not set up system like the BBC complaints system (although not for complaints, but similar system)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
It could work in the same way like the following simple example.
Someone uses the form to submit an issue they have, knowing the result may well be published.
- “Hey google you have banned me why”
_ Google investigates issue, sees they have broken guidelines.
- Gooogle publishes the response
- “yeah we banned your site, you broke rules 1,4,8 doing this at your site, so we removed you from the index”
Everyone learns something from the banning, and google is seen to be more transparent.
Just a thought
azuka Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
by the way, in one moment I got this error, of course, It was after “Why banned me” horror… v_V
Error establishing a database connection
Adam Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
What’s weird about Aaron’s repeated jabs at Google is that he is offering some specifics without going all the way, (for example, which site exactly is he so steamed about?) so it’s impossible to know who’s right here, if anyone. Hearing it from Aaron’s side, yeah, it sounds like he got penalized because he knows the SEO game and Google doesn’t want him hogging the top search results. On the other hand, he may have done something blatantly against Google’s rules and is leaving that part of the story out.
So I guess if you’re going to talk about the specifics, maybe you & Aaron should both agree on how specific you’re going to get. Telling us what Aaron did wrong and which site he keeps referring to would be interesting, but seems somewhat like an invasion of privacy, in that he obviously doesn’t want to identify the site.
If he doesn’t want to talk specifics, I guess I’d leave it at —”Aaron knows what he did but doesn’t want to admit it publicly.” Or, if he truly doesn’t know what he did, I’d leave it at “I’d discuss the issue, but unless I can include all the details, I’m not going to bother.”
I hope Aaron wants to share more, because it would obviously be helpful to Webmasters everywhere.
Bonnie Gibbons Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Matt,
Count me in the transparency column. To the extent that addressing Aaron’s concerns will provide actionable insights to whitehat professionals, please do so.
All this mystery may be useful in smacking down sites that genuinely deserve it, but one of the more tiresome challenges of doing SEO is separating the truth from the paranoia. Aaron’s central claim involves a few of these “SEO nightmares” that we SEOs are often asked about and, while we may have a pretty fair idea of the answer, we have nothing authoritative to point to when Webmaster Guildelines are too high-level. Those nightmares include getting dumped from the index for a reason that, intuitively, ought not be considered a violation. It’s hard to imagine a search engine going after a site merely “because it’s owned by a prominent SEO” but people do indeed worry about becoming a red flag for “too much SEO” and other subjective issues.
aaron wall Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Hi Matt
Glad to hear you are reading my posts. Sorry if I offended you. My phone is 401 207 1945 if you want to give me a ring, and I am not too far down the road either.
I think Google has done some great things. I am an avid user of the search product, Gmail, AdWords, AdSense, Youtube, and I own a few shares of Google stock. And Google pushing search so hard makes SEO more valuable, which increases how much I get paid for knowing SEO. So its not like I hate all things Google.
Keep in mind that I ran Threadwatch for a long time BEFORE you penalized any of my sites. So me being critical of some (not all) of Google’s policies is nothing new. I recall a specific instance of you calling Threadwatch “Aaronstan”. That probably was not a term of endearment.
My issue is not with one of my sites getting penalized, that happens to any small webmaster who owns lots of sites. I know of many friends who have got penalized recently. In some cases perhaps the penalty was deserved, and in some cases not.
My specific issues worthy of debate are:
- how nofollow was pushed through as a fix for blog spam, and then quickly became something that you must use on paid links or else be called a web spammer
- the uneven nature of hand editing - which was even included in semi-anonymous warning you guys had published on Search Engine Land
- the death of many types organic links caused by Google FUD - as an example, I did public relations for a friend and got an article published about their business in the mainstream media. In that case my friend’s business was the focus of the article, and yet that media source did not want to link out because they felt that might be too promotional AND they were afraid to link out from their site. A web controlled by fear will fare worse than a web built on passion and creativity.
- how Google can buy YouTube and tightly integrate it into the search results, but if smaller webmasters buy sites and fix them up to improve user experience they are somehow considered spammers.
- how some AdWords advertisers are given discounts (through enhanced clickthrough rates) for using additional Google products like Google Checkout
- talking up the quality of linkbait and then penalizing sites that build organic links too quickly.
- when you penalize a site and allow people to steal that entire site’s content via your AdSense program. how hard is it to add ANY quality control issues to AdSense to verify sites are not a wholesale copy of another PRIOR to accepting them in your ad program? If Google wants to organize the world’s information they shouldn’t fund a large portion of the world’s information pollution.
If you want to vilify me that will not be hard to do. I made many mistakes throughout my life and will likely continue to make some. Hopefully as I grow older I will make fewer and less dumb ones. I wonder where this exchange will end up on my list of all time greats though.
Halfdeck Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Matt, I think the best thing you can do is to explain exactly what happened with Aaron’s site that he invested 50K into.
His accusation: He blogged about his site, a Googler read his blog post, and proceeded to kill the site because Aaron is a well known SEO..
What really happened?
Without attacking Aaron Wall or taking issue with any of his anti-Google statements, you could at least answer that question. By answering it you put this issue that’s been bothering him for ages to rest.
Halfdeck Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
“My issue is not with one of my sites getting penalized, that happens to any small webmaster who owns lots of sites.”
Yet every time someone bashes you for bashing Google that’s the first excuse you bring up Aaron.
Paul S Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
The design has been finalised, now don’t all rush at once to buy it:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/9435/seoscumgg5.gif
Matt Marlin Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
I think definitely that some of Aaron’s comments are out of whack. After all, Google is a business and businesses need to improve revenue and profits. One way Google accomplishes that is by eliminating people that are spoofing the index. One other way is by improving search results. I think Aaron is experiencing frustration the way that many good SEO’s are. Google tackles some, but not all problems. For instance, two of the leaders in my industry have blatantly paid for their position utilizing some of the techniques described in Aaron’s post- see a “mesothelioma” search (www.mesotheliomanews.com and http://www.asbestosnews.com). I think Aaron has a lot of boiled up frustration and I credit him for saying what others won’t. On the other hand, I think Aaron needs to be realistic about search and look at how far it has come. Change is constant and search is always changing. Aaron needs to change with it or go into another business.
Giovanna Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Hi Matt,
Aaron briefly introduced you to me at SMX is Seattle. You seemed very approachable and personable despite the swarms of people you attract.
Since you want the public’s opinion on what to do, my suggestion is to privately weed out the misunderstanding with Aaron. He really does means well and sometimes brags to me about how lucky he was to have dinner with you a few years back
Thanks
Dennis Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Kiss him you fool!
Bob Blick Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
I think it deserves a response. Google needs to let people know why they are being banned as they are not always right - and need to give people a good chance to respond.
I remember back when Yahoo was the big guy and it was irritating that they made you pay $295 just to get your site looked at. Along came Google and I can still recall telling people to check them out for searching.
My thinking is it would not be too hard for someone to bring out a new search engine more friendly to website owners and make a big splash. I occassionally click on page 20 or something just to see what’s there and, lo and behold, there are a lot of very good sites where the webmaster simply does not know SEO.
Having had a site banned because of a hosting error - I think site owners deserve explanations. Answer him.
Aaron Pratt Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Aaron Wall has turned into an elitist no it all, I deleted his old interview from my blog, I just can’t listen to his insanity anymore. Try to comment and challenge anything he says on his blog and he either edits your comments, calls you stupid or one of his mindless drones gives you hell.
In defense of people who watch Google with an eagle eye… I think we need more, organic search must be protected, if you guys try to push it even further down on the page (adwords, universal widgets) we will need people like Aaron Wall to give you hell but yeah, he has gone mad lately, I agree.
Turn it up and leave no prisoners alive!
Sam I Am Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
I’d say don’t respond here. The reasons are many, and the ‘here’ is in there for good reason. You need to tone the dial away from your blog and towards the places where your posting will reach the most people and can be considered actual Google policy. All of us are encouraged NOT to contact Googlers personally or post their problems on your blog, so I’m not sure why you would do the opposite? In fact just calling him out here like this is somewhat akin to Rand’s ‘outing’ of sites on the seomoz blog a while back. If you weren’t who you were, people would be going banana’s about this right about now…
All that said, if Aaron really has a problem with it and brings it up in Google’s groups or some official place where you can contact Google (that’s really the only place isn’t it?!?), then that would be a sublime place to offer him some advice.
He might have to wait 6 months like the rest of us, but I don’t see why having huge PR pull should get some cases fast tracked? If that’s the path Google is going down next time a penalty occurs on a site we’d all be calling PR specialists…. surely that can’t be G’s intent? Or do the big guys with the big names really have a leg up on everyone else in Google? Don’t worry, I know you’re not going to answer that
msnchat Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Id ip bann him if i was you:)
Matt Cutts Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Aaron, the part of your Blogoscoped post that I noticed the most was
“As a comparison, a few years ago I bought an old site that had about 500 inbound links. Over the course of a year and a half I spent about $50,000 on marketing and content development. I built over 12,000 organic inbound links into the site, so my link profile was at least 95% organic, clean, and hand built using editorial votes.
After building up the site’s profile I decided it made sense to rebrand the site using a stronger domain name. I 301 redirected the site to a new domain (same design, same content, same topic) and then blogged about how to rebrand a site. Shortly after writing that blog post a Google engineer read my blog and killed ALL of my link equity. Next thing I know an AdSense spam site that stole all my content was ranking where my site should have been. In spite of having email contact with Google search engineers, and explaining that I built most of the links organically, they did not care a bit. I am an SEO so I am scum, and that site should die because it is mine.”
I was considering talking more about those two paragraphs.
mark Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
“make the post zing!”
Go ahead!!!
aaron wall Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
What made the Search Engine Land post remarkable or “anti-Google” in nature? If you do a follow up post I would love to see the other issues I mentioned addressed.
Paul S Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
As originally posted by Aaron Pratt: “organic search must be protected, if you guys try to push it even further down on the page”
I think this is primarily the debate of the year: “Why is Google diluting organic listings”, “At which point will all hell break loose - when organics are below-the-fold”?
Its scandalous how you can place 2 or 3 ppc placements at the optimal top position and then harp on about relevancy.
Yeah, its relevant if you pay for it!
E Lawrence Welch Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
What people forget is that Google is a business first and search engine second - it’s not a “non-profit organization”. As with any big business - there’s tremendous pressure from shareholders, directors, etc. (people who care very little about anything except the bottom line) to push the financial numbers to the limit. Google will always be upseting the SEO crowd simply because of what it is - a big business. Google owes everything to its shareholders and nothing to us (people fighting for organic rankings). Google will always find herself walking a delicate balancing act between profits and search relevance.
Alexis Kauffmann Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
“Why keep everybody guessing all the time?”
I make mine this questioning from Patrick Altoft. Google’s atitude towards webmasters is nearly Kafkian: “there is an accusation against you”.
One of my students, a blog owner, gets this note “we have detected fraudulent clicks on your Adsense”. He never asked for clicks nor clicked his own ads (he is wise enough not to waste time on such primary behavior) but, then again, Google says it detected fraud, so he must be doing something wrong, something he will never get a chance to change, because Google treats this as a case of “national security”.
Secret judgments and penalties, in case you guys are young enough not to remember, were common in the Soviet Union and other far from democratic states. It is shameful to see a company which is said to rely on the “democratic nature of the web” adopting such atitudes.
Paul S Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Google is definitely showing signs of Kafkaesque.
Judgment without Trial - get the AWOL T-Shirt Today!
C’Mon Matt, don’t toe the ‘Party’ line. Unchain those shackles. Speak-Out!
Seo Vibe Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
In the Google Corner - Matt Cutts !
In the SEO corner - Aaron Wall !
**DING - DING - DING** Bring on round one.
The winner? ME, because you guys can’t fight without me learning something, and I’m watching EVERYONE!
Calum Coburn Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Matt - if Google were your God or Government, would you prefer your God or Government to punish you and not let you know why? One word: Transparency. With power comes responsibility to those who put you in your position - those who support with their votes.
Take a look at the results to your poll, you wanted 3 to get the vote (by the amount of words gave it), but it was the least favourite. So yes, we want engagement. You asked the question, so lets have a meaningful discussion.
Greg Hill Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Hey Matt,
I’d let it slide and contact Aaron directly. The reason I say let it slide is that the whole deal is probably linkbait anyway.
I’d chat with him personally because I generally find these types of communications (emails, posts, forums, etc) end up escalating into a flame war that could easily have been resolved with a personal chat. Most people become much more reasonable one-to-one. Or is that how wars start?
So, my choice is “Why get into a back-and-forth? “.
Another thought is that I have found that when secrets are held closely that suspicion ensues. Transparent operations eliminate conspiracy theories. Google does a great job and provides us with a lot of tools (thank you) but maybe more input would help. Clearly you don’t need to go so far as to divulge the algorithm(s) though I’d love to get a look
Brandon Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
voted !
lets see the rumbles
j Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Yes, I would like to see Aaron points addressed.
- how nofollow was pushed through as a fix for blog spam, and then quickly became something that you must use on paid links or else be called a web spammer
- the uneven nature of hand editing - which was even included in semi-anonymous warning you guys had published on Search Engine Land
- the death of many types organic links caused by Google FUD - as an example, I did public relations for a friend and got an article published about their business in the mainstream media. In that case my friend’s business was the focus of the article, and yet that media source did not want to link out because they felt that might be too promotional AND they were afraid to link out from their site. A web controlled by fear will fare worse than a web built on passion and creativity.
- how Google can buy YouTube and tightly integrate it into the search results, but if smaller webmasters buy sites and fix them up to improve user experience they are somehow considered spammers.
- how some AdWords advertisers are given discounts (through enhanced clickthrough rates) for using additional Google products like Google Checkout
- talking up the quality of linkbait and then penalizing sites that build organic links too quickly.
- when you penalize a site and allow people to steal that entire site’s content via your AdSense program. how hard is it to add ANY quality control issues to AdSense to verify sites are not a wholesale copy of another PRIOR to accepting them in your ad program? If Google wants to organize the world’s information they shouldn’t fund a large portion of the world’s information pollution.
Pat Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
“Anti-Google Complaints”
While Aaron’s negativity towards Google has been becoming more vocal, I would hate to see the many valid points he presents become known as “Anti-Google”
As a keen observer Aaron has few equals.
If what he is currently observing is making him become more negative towards Google, I would hope that you would see this as an opportunity Matt. You have an intelligent, knowledgeable, and passionate user of your products commenting upon them.
He brings up good points. I would love to see them addressed.
It is so easy to see someone who is bringing up unpopular points as someone who is “just complaining”. I do not see Aaron doing that, he is passionate about search and he is creating passionate discussions about it.
It seems to my (admittedly untrained) eyes that you have taken his comments about Google, and successfully turned the attention away from his points, and instead shifted it to Aaron Wall. In my opinion, this was brilliantly done
But his points are not about Aaron Wall, or about you they are about Google. I hope to learn about Google from you comments.
I already learned all I needed to learn about Aaron when I emailed him, told him I was broke and he sent me a cope SEObook for free, the same way he does for non-profits.
I already have learned all I need to learn about you, when you kindly engaged in conversation and drinks with me and were open and responsive to my communication.
I just want to learn about Google. Even if you felt each of his points had no validity whatsoever, which I doubt, I think we all know that Aaron has a way of catching on to things far in advance of others, If what he is “catching” now is a negativity towards Google, then…
Thanks Mat for putting this out, can’t wait to see
beussery Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Hey Matt,
I’m the biggest Google fan I know but, I’m torn on how to respond!
As you know, controversy always draws attention. No matter what you say, SEOBook stands to win by default just from the exposure it would generate. Perhaps Google should consider hiring Aaron, I don’t know? : )
I’m by no means taking sides here. Again not taking either side, I have no idea “what’s going on with Aaron” and truly believe GOOGLE is the GRRREATEST. At the same time I think Aaron’s SEOBook is an excelent resource for anyone interested in Search Engine Marketing.
Recently, comments were made by a high ranking Google official that could be interpreted to mean “SEO = Spam in Google’s opinion”. I’m actually a big fan of the “employee” (legend) who said it, I humbled to have the opportunity to meet him in person a few weeks prior at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, GA and I know what he was trying to say came out wrong. Because it was said, I do think you should clear the air on how Google views SEO.
I also see Aaron’s point when it comes to press releases. There is at least one “PR” website where a $100 “donation” almost always, all but guarantees top placement in Google News. That said the $100 “donation” is not paid to Google and to my knowledge Google has no affiliation with the site. While this may be “buying” top placement it is clearly not buying top placement from Google.
-Brian
Kathy Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
I’d appreciate a discussion and explanation too.
Aaron Pratt Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Matt Cutts said:
Aaron, the part of your Blogoscoped post that I noticed the most was
“As a comparison, a few years ago I bought an old site that had about 500 inbound links. Over the course of a year and a half I spent about $50,000 on marketing and content development. I built over 12,000 organic inbound links into the site, so my link profile was at least 95% organic, clean, and hand built using editorial votes.
After building up the site’s profile I decided it made sense to rebrand the site using a stronger domain name. I 301 redirected the site to a new domain (same design, same content, same topic) and then blogged about how to rebrand a site. Shortly after writing that blog post a Google engineer read my blog and killed ALL of my link equity. Next thing I know an AdSense spam site that stole all my content was ranking where my site should have been. In spite of having email contact with Google search engineers, and explaining that I built most of the links organically, they did not care a bit. I am an SEO so I am scum, and that site should die because it is mine.”
I was considering talking more about those two paragraphs.
Matt? That is a great start…let’s hear it please.
Kurzsichtig Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Aaron, now the ball is in your court. The issue Matt picked up is exactly the one most of us want to know about. Can you give him the go-ahead and let him explain what happened from the Google perspective? Could be a great learning for all of us
JLH Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
I’d hold off on the calling Aaron’s actions as pure link bait. My guess is that Matt has garnered a few links today with a post that just teases us with the possibility of a post. That could be looked on as baiting as well, or at least a good bit of viral marketing. Building up anticipation of a possibly controversial event has pretty much the same effect as the event actually happening, without all of the icky details of the event.
Now Matt doesn’t monetize his blog, need the links, nor the extra readers so we don’t have much motive for such an action.
Perhaps when all is said and done the post could be used as an example of how to convey controversy without actually creating it.
On the other hand, maybe Matt and Aaron are in on this together just to teach all of us lemmings a lesson.
(side note: For the record, personally I think Aaron has real beliefs for valid reasons and didn’t start this for attention but rather for resolution, and I also think Matt wasn’t interested in link baiting either, but was actually looking for some feedback. Just looking before he leaps a bit)
Matt Cutts Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
By the way, Aaron, I appreciate you offering your phone number to talk about this situation more. Talking about some of this would be faster than emailing or blogging back and forth.
aaron wall Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
Thanks back to you too, Matt.
Brian Cummiskey Said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
Matt,
I think you should really consider hearing him out. There are some fatal flaws with Google’s search algorithm that more than just Aaron are pointing out or have been effected by. The small picture is an e-blog battle. The larger picture is that us hard-working web people are losing traffic to garbage/spam/MFA .info sites that do nothing but steal content in the first place when we are following the rules, optimizing our sites, and posting thought-worthy content.
We website owners need to pay for our expensive servers, so we sell ads. Google then drops us 2 or 3 PageRanks for selling ads through other networks or directly.
We website owners spend many hours validating code, setting up proper W3 heading structures, and using relevant, non-spammy keywords, and we move to supplemental results.
We website owners RELY on search engines, especially google, to bring us interested parties to our sites. We follow the rules, don’t spam, build natural back links, and we end up dropping PR, dropping position, and NEVER god forbid out rank wikipedia or youtube, even if my site was the source.
This, I believe, is where Aaron is coming from. He speaks for a lot of us, in my opinion.
-Brian
skeymedia
Tom Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Thank goodness for Aaron, I say! Thank goodness for anyone who was the balls to stand up and say what they think — and sensible things too — about a corporate giant like Google.
Blake K Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 12:22 am
One of the reasons so many of us are interested in Aaron’s specific beefs and criticisms of Google — other than his relentlessly thought-provoking posts — is that he was once an enthusiastic advocate. I’d love to see some open back and forth. I think it would be good for everyone.
lance Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 1:04 am
You are the SPAM team head at Google, i hear. Do you really have the time to respond to rants of an individual, that too in a public blog? Why dont spend time to catch some spammer instead? PATHETIC!!!
Shiva Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Silence is the ultimate weapon Matt, plus he is just doing it for linkbait. You know how these bloggers are…
Ray Burn Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 1:25 am
Hi Matt
[blockquote]I was considering talking more about those two paragraphs.[/blockquote]
At the moment we only have one side to the story, I always think it is better to hear both sides.
I have learned a lot from your blog and I sense the Google/Matt bashing is eating at you a bit - it would me too.
I guess that is kind of bashing and moaning is inevitable at one level - but really rather sad.
It will be a sad day if the negativity makes you less inclined to post about the issues in the future.
ian Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 2:48 am
I don’t think you should underestimate the amount of anti-google sentiment. Until recently I have been one of the biggest google fans. But that recent PR update, who knows the real reason for it, but it looked a bit like a manual pagerank edit, especially when a site like engadget can drop from a PR7 to a PR5. I havent sold a text link since may 2006, because I knew google didnt like them, but I did have a page up saying text links for sale, just never sold any. Anyhow, I realise that google has a tough job in keeping search clean, and I am sure they have valid reasons for doing what they did in an effort to keep search clean. What probably upset people more is how some high profile sites had their PR restored so fast while smaller sites must wait and see.
The thing that I dont like about google is how sites can blatantly steal most of my content with some kind of scraper script and maintain a higher pagerank than my site. What annoys me more is that google adsense supports the stealing of site content by not banning their adsense accounts even when reported.
It just seems ludicrous to me that some scraper site can have a PR5 and outrank a site like forbes.com which has a PR4. It is like google thinks more highly of content thieves than they do of someone who sells links on their site.
A lot of sites affected were fairly respectable sites, they have some degree of influence, you have to expect that they are going to speak out against google. I am a small site with only 30,000+ members. What about the more influential websites that were affected. Google may be in a position of dominance now, at the moment it can afford to ignore the sentiments of the webmaster community, but what you have effectively done is destroyed what was once a very loyal fan base, and one with some degree of influence. You cant seriously hit respectable sites with what looks like a manual hand picked pagerank cut and not expect the owners to start to hate google, it is just human nature. I still use google because their search is still the best, google reader is the best, adsense is the best, I just dont recommend them to anyone anymore or sing their praises anymore. And if microsoft developed a product as good, I would jump ship in a heartbeat.
Google may be right, Aaron may be wrong, I fully understand the tough job that google has in keeping their search the best. But google should still care to see what is causing the swell of anti-google sentiment, or it could simply ignore them if they believe that they have no influence on the readers of their content.
Katinka Hesselink Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 2:52 am
I do feel you should go into the content of Aaron’s blog. It seems to me he has some good points.
Atlanta Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 3:10 am
Turn the snark dial up to 11 and make the post zing! Let the games begin!
Ray Burn Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 3:25 am
Apart from how to do
ian Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 3:39 am
Also in regards to my comment above, in all fairness, I should give credit where credit is due, google as large an organisation as it is, you would think that nobody would read google spam reports, and I dont know if it was chance, but about a week ago, google did drastically reduce the number of pages indexed by the site stealing content and that restored my faith somewhat in google, so my anti-google sentiment was reduced by about 50% by that, and in time it is possible that the adsense would also deal with the issue of stolen content, so I should at least mention that I am headed in the direction of being a pro-googler again.
Nick Wilsdon Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 3:57 am
I’m 100% sure Aaron isn’t doing this for any linkbait or marketing purpose. As has been pointed out before, raising these concerns has far more potential to damage his brand.
I’m glad though you have managed to resolve this amicably.
Doug Heil Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 5:51 am
I guess I’m not even sure why you care what “one” person says about Google Matt? Why would Google care as well?
I’m with Michael Martinez totally on this.
I have never thought it was in Google’s best interest to cater to the SEO industry like they seem to want to do. SEO’s did ‘not’ make Google. The entire world made Google. If all the SEO’s disappeared tomorrow, Google would still be Google, albeit not as relevant maybe as “whitehat” SEO’s do help Google with relevancy. Only when the general public gleems Google as irrelevant will Google cease to be the biggest and the best. I really do not think that the catering to the SEO industry has helped one bit in this regard. It’s only led to SEO’s asking for more and more and more, with no end in site. The more you give them, the more they want. Letting anyone know “exactly” why something happened is not a good thing. It only serves to showing that person exactly how far they can go before something happens. Is that a good thing for Google?
If Google starts going down the path of answering all critics in the SEO industry, you will be spending most days doing so. Giving one person special mention does not look good to many of us at all. Some people simply love to whine. That’s not going to stop anytime soon.
To the person above who stated that SEO’s and Google have different interests is very much not true. My biggest gripe about this SEO industry is the fact that many out there seem to think Google is the enemy. Couldn’t be further from the truth.
As it’s been for a very long time now…. you spam Google, you eventually get caught. Stop spamming. The guidelines are very, very clear.
I will say this however; those G guidelines could be fine tuned on many statements it makes. As far as clarity goes?… very clear.
Doug Heil Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 6:04 am
Another thought.
I know this issue stems from the amount of incoming links to a website. What I really do not understand about Google is why you all are rewarding sites just because they can get some links on social sites like digg, “spin”, etc? Are those really “votes” from “one” website to another website? Are they really? I don’t think so. Many of these social sites do not use nofollow either. Why are sites rewarded (if they indeed are) just because a submitter of those links has lots of friends who can get the site to the front page?
I always thought a true vote was one where one website owner truly thinks another website owner’s site was good for it’s visitors, so it votes for it by giving a link to it. When did that cease to be the case? If a site can get thousands of instant votes just because it has many friends in a particular niche, that’s one of the reasons in the future that will curtail the growth for that search engine. I’m not entirely sure what the reasons were for AW’s whining, but if was indeed the fact that the site got many thousands of links real quick-like, then Google did just fine and should be doing “much” more of it.
Of course; this is all my opinion, but I’m standing by it.
Aaron Pratt Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 6:11 am
Useless post!
Hugo Guzman Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 6:33 am
First off, thanks for citing my post on the matter, Matt! I actually have a ton of respect for Aaron and consider him both a colleague and a mentor of sorts, especially from a marketing perspective.
That being said, I don’t necessarily agree with his anti-google stance and I would love to hear your response. No need to get antagonistic. Just a professional response should do.
Hugo
Doug Heil Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 7:16 am
Not sure what you mean Aaron. I agreed with your last post in here. Your post was much more personal than mine was, but I do agree with it. I think both my posts were very relevant and something Google should think about.
Michael Stubblefield Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 7:28 am
I just noticed that Aaron posted a followup on his blog, explaining that you two had a conversation about misunderstandings, and how it’s important to remember that a lot of things which may seem personal are just different business perspectives. It’s good to see that things can be taken offline and spoken of intelligently and without turning the internet into a giant flame-war.
I read both of your blogs every day, and I think you both do a great job giving the internet community important information. Keep up the great work!
Eric Dytzel Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 7:51 am
I am going to sit on the fence here and say I understand both sides and will use my website as an example. In April I purchased SEOBook to use as a guide for SEO of website of mine that was ranked around 600 on google for my primary search term.
Eric Dytzel Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 7:54 am
Sorry hit wrong key
Anyway I followed his directions and over 6 months moved from 600 to 14 on Google. I did NOT buy a single inbound link, unless you count Yahoo Directory and about 3 other directories.
Has the fact I did not purchase text links kept me from the top ten? I dont know. I do know that by using the advice in SEOBook I was able to move my site up. I have done my best to follow Googles guidelines as well……
So I guess I can understand both sides of this. It will be interesting to see how all of this pans out.
I am a supporter of both Aaron and Matt…….. I am not going to choose sides in this one…..
Aaron Pratt Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Doug Heil - I am not talking about you, I am talking about Matt putting attention on Aaron Wall for some of the blatantly incorrect things he said then backing off like a scared puppy. If you are going to call someone out Matt, either do it don’t do it! Not a time to be passive aggressive.
“I really do not think that the catering to the SEO industry has helped one bit” - Doug Heil
“Frankly, I could care less about his gripes. I’d rather you take on something substantial, like what you’re doing to help Supplemental Results pages rank in queries WHEN THEY ARE MORE RELEVANT than pages in the Main Web Index.” - Michael Martinez
Doug Heil Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 8:09 am
LOL that makes sense now. Your post coming after mine looked strange as I thought we both agreed on this.
j Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 8:10 am
Scared puppy? I would say Scared Kitty, didnt you see his halloween pic? lol.
In all truth Matt, please address as many of Aaron’s questions on this post as you can… Whats the point if you dont? It will be as A Pratt, a useless post, if you dont…
Doug Heil Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 8:43 am
oh… can’t help it.
740 244 9313 if Google or Matt is making phone calls. I’d love to shoot the shit with them about how I can do better at building sites, and how far I can toe that line before Google slaps me. I think many in here and out there would love to know directly from Google with that personal touch.
Going down this road just can’t be a good thing.
IncrediBILL Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Matt,
I think you’re on the brink of starting a dangerous precedence here just because Aaron is a high profile SEO blogger.
Considering the total number of people claiming to have sites recently penalized, why should Aaron’s high profile posts justify any more of an answer than anyone else posting about being penalized on webmaster forums around the web?
In all fairness, if you answer Aaron you need to answer them all.
Besides, why stop the fun?
It’s been way more interesting to watch the self-proclaimed king of all SEO twist and squirm while lashing out at Google every other day than it was when he thought he had all the answers.
Max T Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 9:46 am
That’s sorta what I said in a previous (unpublished) comment. I’ll try to be a bit less prickly this time (if that was the problem)…:
1) Aaron is a big boy. He probably KNOWS why Google is doing all that.
2) Then again if there is something new afoot, we’d like to hear it as well.
In any case, please shed some light…
Bruce Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 10:32 am
I would suspect from all the comments that we’ll be seeing a post and I look forward to it.
I would honestly be more interested though in learning how those of us who work to stay honest can keep from being harmed by having spam sites like
cellphones.fogtail.com
link to our stories and just parrot them, just so they can display ads.
I work on towing the line, but I am truly concerned about getting harmed by crap like this. If not by Google, by Yahoo or MSN.
Gabriel Goldenberg Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 10:34 am
I noticed first: http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/is-the-alist-a-closed-list
See also Aaron’s comment on that post.
Multi-Worded Adam Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Go figure. 110 comments and Bill’s the one who makes the most sense in the equation. I actually had the same thought, but Bill beat me to it, and good on him.
Matt: if you respond to Aaron at all, where do you draw the line between what does and doesn’t get responded to? What happens to the C-list, D-list, or (insert letter here)-list webmaster or SEO who has an issue and expects the same treatment as Aaron Wall gets? And how do you satisfy everyone fairly?
It shouldn’t matter if his name is Aaron Wall, Bob Wall, Aaron Smith, Joe Smith, whatever…equal treatment for everyone. Period.
Not only that, the only reason Aaron writes the kind of crap he does (and let’s call it what it is…C-R-A-P) is to curry favor with the kind of people who would rather blame big G for their SEO woes than to look in the mirror. Aaron caters to the disenfranchised blind sheep thinkers of the world, who aren’t smart or savvy enough to realize that Aaron’s sole purpose is to look out for #1 and that he really couldn’t care less if anyone else ever succeeds, as long as he does.
Not only that, you’re not really a snarky type, Matt. You’ve got a bit of it in you, but you’ll probably do what you usually do (argue factually and logically, with a little bit of attitude). Facts, logic, and common sense always take a back seat to pure emotion in any kind of debate, and you’ll lose the argument even if you have a solid case. The best thing you can do here is to do nothing.
By the way, has anyone noticed lately how political SEO is getting? It’s not even about sites or optimization or any of that stuff that it should be about anymore; it’s all jockeying and positioning and debating strategy and a whole bunch of other garbage.
Ruslan Abuzant Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
That’s still a decent expression of what he thinks. Democracy?
Matts Putts Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Matt,
TRY TO WRAP THAT BIG BRAIN OF YOURS AROUND THIS SIMPLE LITTLE FACT. PEOPLE ON THE NET ARE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY. LET THEM! IN FACT HELP THEM! THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIVE IN MANSIONS AND DRIVE FERRARIS. THEY ARE TRYING TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES!!
Ray Burn Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
In the meantine, this post kept me amused, I hope you all enjoy a light hearted moment too:
this post
evan Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
It would be great if Google truly opened up with webmasters and provided an easy way for webmasters to get a simple no/yes with a reason for sites that may be penalized. It would help put a stop to all the complaints and save webmasters a whole lot of time trying to figure out what is going on with their site in google.
Most webmasters out there — especial the new ones like myself — don’t know or have the time to track google’s every guideline. Most are not trying to game google but may through ignorance be penalized. I myself am worried one of my sites may be penalized and have spent a large amount of frustrated time pooring over the guidelines trying to figure this out.
Help the community that you are directing (whether you like it or not) and open up.
Dave Murphy Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
I agree with most of the comments….. starting a war with Aaron Wall would only serve to promote his views (any press is good press and all that jazz!) but also waste your time and would most certainly descend into pettiness.
I would say that a response and leaving it at that would be really helpful. After all, the last thing we need is for new comers to the industry to take his views as gospel and start precticing what he preaches.
Dave Murphy Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
practicing (ooops)
Sufyan Said,
November 15, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
IMHO, any such misunderstanding(s) should have been removed behind the scene. FULL STOP