Comments on: Watching a story, part I http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/ neat fun stuff Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:25:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Trond Sorvoja http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-93809 Trond Sorvoja Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:58:31 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-93809 Click Fraud is a problem, and Google might be founding terrorism. But could Google be blamed? I don't think so. John Scott is right about the rel="nofollow", shame on you! If you don't like a source then don't link out to it. Using rel="nofollow" on a unpaid link that you have added yourself while quoting the source is unethical. Click Fraud is a problem, and Google might be founding terrorism. But could Google be blamed? I don’t think so.

John Scott is right about the rel=”nofollow”, shame on you! If you don’t like a source then don’t link out to it. Using rel=”nofollow” on a unpaid link that you have added yourself while quoting the source is unethical.

]]> By: John Scott http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-92309 John Scott Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:31:37 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-92309 Matt, I like you and all, but in regards to the SEO Blackhat link being nofollowed.... If you think them worthy of citation, why wouldn't they be worthy of being followed? It's not a paid link. And isn't that what nofollow was designed for? And, yes, the Google-funding terrorists thing is assclownery. Matt,

I like you and all, but in regards to the SEO Blackhat link being nofollowed....

If you think them worthy of citation, why wouldn’t they be worthy of being followed? It’s not a paid link. And isn’t that what nofollow was designed for?

And, yes, the Google-funding terrorists thing is assclownery.

]]> By: Multi-Worded Adam http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91415 Multi-Worded Adam Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:57:59 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91415 So you're hiding because...? Running the Google toolbar? Maybe GAS on your site? Blogspot.com blog? Must be all of the above. So you're funding terrorism too, probably. And you're payiing taxes to that terrorist-funding senator in your home state too! (<b>Now</b> do you see how rampant, illogical speculation with nothing to back it up is asinine? That was the real point, and the point of the whole debunking in the first place.) So you’re hiding because...?

Running the Google toolbar?
Maybe GAS on your site?
Blogspot.com blog?

Must be all of the above. So you’re funding terrorism too, probably. And you’re payiing taxes to that terrorist-funding senator in your home state too!

(Now do you see how rampant, illogical speculation with nothing to back it up is asinine? That was the real point, and the point of the whole debunking in the first place.)

]]> By: fra http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91400 fra Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:23:50 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91400 well, the article is just sensationalism. I said it and I repeat it. What can be intresting is the click fraud part... I'd really like to know what you think abut this, matt. Oh, and that nofollow link... bleah... :-) well, the article is just sensationalism. I said it and I repeat it. What can be intresting is the click fraud part... I’d really like to know what you think abut this, matt.
Oh, and that nofollow link... bleah... :-)

]]> By: D http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91378 D Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:18:52 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91378 Multi-Worded Adam, I am not Matt, and thats all you really need to know about me. I am not the public face of a public company. My point is, I cannot say for a fact that my senator does not fund terrorism just because I live in the state. To know that for sure, I would have to be handling his finaces. For Matt to know for a fact that his company does not fund terrorism would require him doing an audit of all the financial records himself. Just because you are sitting in the car doesn't mean you're the driver, or even the navigator. Does Matt handle confidential requests for information from the government? No? So then how does he know when it happens? Because his PR person tells him so? Well that must make it true then. Multi-Worded Adam, I am not Matt, and thats all you really need to know about me. I am not the public face of a public company. My point is, I cannot say for a fact that my senator does not fund terrorism just because I live in the state. To know that for sure, I would have to be handling his finaces. For Matt to know for a fact that his company does not fund terrorism would require him doing an audit of all the financial records himself. Just because you are sitting in the car doesn’t mean you’re the driver, or even the navigator. Does Matt handle confidential requests for information from the government? No? So then how does he know when it happens? Because his PR person tells him so? Well that must make it true then.

]]> By: Multi-Worded Adam http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91374 Multi-Worded Adam Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:42:30 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91374 "D"...IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME...(is it?) It's a lot easier to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and make comments like that without potentially exposing yourself as a hypocrite (as the former CIA agent has) than it is to have the guts to step forward, say who you are publicly and be prepared for the same scrutiny someone like Matt gets. Hiding also makes your own point look that much weaker (not that it was much of a point before.) Stand up and be counted! “D”...IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME...(is it?)

It’s a lot easier to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and make comments like that without potentially exposing yourself as a hypocrite (as the former CIA agent has) than it is to have the guts to step forward, say who you are publicly and be prepared for the same scrutiny someone like Matt gets. Hiding also makes your own point look that much weaker (not that it was much of a point before.)

Stand up and be counted!

]]> By: Brian Clark http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91358 Brian Clark Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:53:49 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91358 Matt, is Quad considered a "bad neighborhood"? I link to him occasionally because he makes me laugh, and he's a good guy as far as I can tell. There's reallly nothing "black hat" about his blog, so it would be a shame if sites are penalized for linking to him. Matt, is Quad considered a “bad neighborhood”?

I link to him occasionally because he makes me laugh, and he’s a good guy as far as I can tell.

There’s reallly nothing “black hat” about his blog, so it would be a shame if sites are penalized for linking to him.

]]> By: D http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91356 D Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:51:45 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91356 Matt, it's funny to read posts from you on these type of topics because you are totally clueless to the common sense of these things. You are part of a giant institution. For you to claim that you know everything that goes on in it's walls is ludicrous. You are just a spoke on the wheel. With the billions upon billions of dollars in google's pockets, there is a very high chance some of that money was misappropriated and went to fund terrorism. Not to say that it was on purpose, but it happens. I can name several government officials and many other companies that have uknowningly transfered funds to terrorists. I remeber several attack ads during election claiming my very own official funded terror, and he still got elected. Commercials saying "If you smoke weed, you fund terrorism". If you buy certain types of bricks, you fund some terror. It's just the way the world works. Google is not perfect. Stop trying to flat out deny every little rumor, it makes you look like your hiding something. Instead explain the thinking behind the rumor, because when you leave holes in your debunking, it only fans the flames. Matt, it’s funny to read posts from you on these type of topics because you are totally clueless to the common sense of these things. You are part of a giant institution. For you to claim that you know everything that goes on in it’s walls is ludicrous. You are just a spoke on the wheel. With the billions upon billions of dollars in google’s pockets, there is a very high chance some of that money was misappropriated and went to fund terrorism. Not to say that it was on purpose, but it happens. I can name several government officials and many other companies that have uknowningly transfered funds to terrorists. I remeber several attack ads during election claiming my very own official funded terror, and he still got elected. Commercials saying “If you smoke weed, you fund terrorism”. If you buy certain types of bricks, you fund some terror. It’s just the way the world works. Google is not perfect. Stop trying to flat out deny every little rumor, it makes you look like your hiding something. Instead explain the thinking behind the rumor, because when you leave holes in your debunking, it only fans the flames.

]]> By: Brian Turner http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91347 Brian Turner Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:02:37 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91347 "The sizzle is sexier than the meat." Wasn't a particularly sexy sizzle, either. What's incredibly ironic is that after your Part 2 summary, this shows the second time we've seen advertisers "break a story" about how lame AdWords is - only to be left advertising that as PPC companies they are lame at managing PPC campaigns. Overall, I think whatever concerns, criticisms, and animosities webmasters may have regarding Google, throwing attention grabbing keywords like "terrorism" around Google just isn't going to sell. 2c. “The sizzle is sexier than the meat.”

Wasn’t a particularly sexy sizzle, either.

What’s incredibly ironic is that after your Part 2 summary, this shows the second time we’ve seen advertisers “break a story” about how lame AdWords is - only to be left advertising that as PPC companies they are lame at managing PPC campaigns.

Overall, I think whatever concerns, criticisms, and animosities webmasters may have regarding Google, throwing attention grabbing keywords like “terrorism” around Google just isn’t going to sell.

2c.

]]> By: Dave http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91254 Dave Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:17:19 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/watching-a-story-part-i/#comment-91254 Not suprising that the story didn't take off from the sizzle headline, because the real meat of the storry didnt support it. Agreed, they should have just gone forward with the click fraud story. More annoying to me is why Matt NoFollow'd the link to Quad while he was more then happy to use his quote. If your willing to quote him with your other examples his link should also be the same as the other people you linked to. Not suprising that the story didn’t take off from the sizzle headline, because the real meat of the storry didnt support it. Agreed, they should have just gone forward with the click fraud story.

More annoying to me is why Matt NoFollow’d the link to Quad while he was more then happy to use his quote. If your willing to quote him with your other examples his link should also be the same as the other people you linked to.

]]>