Google is really NOT SAYING IN "HOW SEARCH WORKS” ?
-
Hi All SEOmoz members and team,
As I was reading this, is it true that Google does this .
Simply, I don't think so, I haven't experienced any of such what is being talked [http://www.fairsearch.org/search-manipulation/what-google-isnt-saying-in-how-search-works/
C](http://www.fairsearch.org/search-manipulation/what-google-isnt-saying-in-how-search-works/ "http://www.fairsearch.org/search-manipulation/what-google-isnt-saying-in-how-search-works/")ome on, let us discuss the real thing about Google.
Teginder Ravi
-
Google is a business, correct? It's their job to server shareholders by creating value and as long as they do not break the law, what's the issue?
I have always felt Google organic rankings were extremely unbiased. Sure, I would cuss at them when one of my sites were dropped--but was always happy when I leaped over one of my competitors. Anything outside of the organics, is fair game IMHO.
Oh by the way, this site is run by a group of Google competitors including Microsoft.
-
I sniffy some billy bull in this article, not least because of the website itself clearly being anti-google... maybe they should have read the latest ruling from the EU regarding favourance of it's own services anot happening before it posts this stuff...
pinch of salt - and all that
interesting to note on it's about page it uses microsofts logo but the blog doesn't mention bing ....
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Can we ignore "broken links" without redirecting to "new pages"?
Let's say we have reaplced www.website.com/page1 with www.website.com/page2. Do we need to redirect page1 to page2 even page1 doesn't have any back-links? If it's not a replacement, can we ignore a "lost page"? Many websites loose hundreds of pages periodically. What's Google's stand on this. If a website has replaced or lost hundreds of links without reclaiming old links by redirection, will that hurts?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Remove spam url errors from search console
My site was hacked some time ago. I've since then redesigned it and obviously removed all the injection spam. Now I see in search console that I'm getting hundreds of url errors (from the spam links that no longer work). How do I remove them from the search console. The only option I see is "mark as fixed", but obviously they are not "fixed", rather removed. I've already uploaded a new sitemap and fetched the site, as well as submitted a reconsideration request that has been approved.
Algorithm Updates | | rubennunez0 -
Google & Tabbed Content
Hi I wondered if anyone had a case study or more info on how Google treats content under tabs? We have an ecommerce site & I know it is common to put product content under tabs, but will Google ignore this? Becky
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey1 -
Increase in impressions reported by Google Analytics
Because Universal Analytics (and Google Webmaster) only stores SEO data for 3 months, I've been downloading SEO data (from the Acquisition tab of Analytics) to get a record of how impressions, clicks, CTR etc are changing in the long term (our business is seasonal, so these long-term patterns are important). Today, I downloaded data for September, and found a very large increase in the number of impressions compared to previous months. I looked back at the data for August, which I've already downloaded, and found that Analytics is now reporting much higher numbers of impressions than I have in my downloaded data. The total number of impressions has roughly doubled, and the increase for individual URLs varies, with some increasing by a factor of 10. The number of clicks has also increased, by about 15% in total. Because of the 3 month cut-off, I could only look back as far as the 11th of July, but the impressions for the end of July are also much higher than in my downloaded data. I've noticed that Analytics has changed some other details in its reporting of SEO data. For example, the impressions and clicks data is no longer rounded. Could this increase in impressions be a result of those changes? Has anyone else experienced something similar? We can go ahead and use the new data but it will throw our analysis off for past months (which have the lower numbers). If others have experienced something similar it would be good to know, so that we can adjust our historical numbers accordingly.
Algorithm Updates | | MargotLoco20 -
Struggling with Google Bot Blocks - Please help!
I own a site called www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au After months and months we still have a serious issue with all pages having blocked URLs according to Google Webmaster Tools. The 404 errors are returning a 200 header code according to the email below. Do you agree that the 404.php code should be changed? Can you do that please ? The current state: Google webmaster tools Index Status shows: 26,000 pages indexed 44,000 pages blocked by robots. In late March, we implemented a change recommended by an SEO expert and he provided a new robots.txt file, advised that we should amend sitemap.xml and other changes. We implemented those changes and then setup a re-index of the site by google. The no of blocked URLs eventually reduced in May and June to 1,000 for a few days – but now the problem has rapidly returned. The no of pages that are displayed in a google search request of www.google.com.au where the query was ‘site:wheretobuybeauty.com.au’ is 37,000: This new site has been re-crawled over last 4 weeks. About the site This is a Linux php site and has the following: 55,000 URLs in sitemap.xml submitted successfully to webmaster tools robots.txt file has been modified several times: Firstly we had none Then we created one but were advised that it needed to have this current content: User-agent: * Disallow: Sitemap: http://www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/sitemap.xml
Algorithm Updates | | socialgrowth0 -
How could Google define "low quality experience merchants"?
Matt Cutts mentioned at SXSW that Google wants to take into consideration the quality of the experience ecommerce merchants provide and work this into how they rank in SERPs. Here's what he said if you missed it: "We have a potential launch later this year, maybe a little bit sooner, looking at the quality of merchants and whether we can do a better job on that, because we don’t want low quality experience merchants to be ranking in the search results.” My question; how exactly could Google decide if a merchant provides a low and high quality experience? I would image it would be very easy for Google to decide this with merchants in their Trusted Store program. I wonder what other data sets Google could realistically rely upon to make such a judgment. Any ideas or thoughts are appreciated.
Algorithm Updates | | BrianSaxon0 -
Is Google Rotating Good Matches?
I have a theory that Google may be trying to be fair to white-hat-seo sites that are doing the right things with blogging, linking, social media, etc. [ie that deserve equal good positioning] are being cycled to and from the first page, perhaps in a weekly or monthly basis. My theory would be that they are purposefully doing it to give those sites more equal exposure. My case: I've had top rankings for http://thedogbitelawyer.com for almost all of the important terms for dog bite lawyers for a couple of years now. When Penguin came out we lost some ground across the board, and identified that perhaps there was too much duplicate content left over from when I inherited the site. I reworked the site wording and link structure a bit and gained back positioning. Since that time we are up and down like a yo-yo on the top terms! Anybody else have this suspicion? If it's true, I don't need to stress, if we are bouncing around for other reason's I'd better keep stressing!
Algorithm Updates | | JCDenver0 -
New Search Engine.... Vanoogle.com
I'd like to see google start a new search engine. They might call it Vanoogle.com (Vanilla Google). This search engine would not be stinked up with social data, freshness inclusions, crap from my last query, skewed based upon my IP, warped because of my browser, targeted because of my cookies, no personalization, no image results, product results, none of that stuff. Ads are OK if labeled. I just want a plain vanilla search. Something that I know is "clean". Just like the good olde days. Millions of people will start using it right away. 🙂 Would you use Vanoogle.com?
Algorithm Updates | | EGOL2