I do not understand why people are offended that they came back quickly AFTER doing a bit of penance.
Should their investors not have made calls? However, it should be noted that they did their part.
One of my favorite quotes is this: "To save a drowning man, he must first give you his hand"
If the Rap Genius guys were incompetent and did not do their part in removing the links so quickly (see main story for technical details) there would be little or nothing their investors would have been able to do about that.
BTW, it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful. I'm sure many searched had rapgenius appended to it. So the lesson is, make your app so good that when Google delists you, it will make them look bad.
Thankfully?, there is also a precedence for other offenders to use. if you can detail you have atoned for your sins and Google insists your you must do a certain time, you know where to turn to.
BTW, this is Hackernews, and I look forward to the discussion of the (de)merits of how they scrapped and analyzed 177,000 links and not espousing of anger that they survived the punishment.
I'm sure Mahbod (my favorite) and co have learned that you do not go 'daaawging' when you are in a hole. I wish them success.
Because it is a double standard. There are thousands of sites which get blacklisted by Google. I'm sure all of them fix their errors really quickly once they realize they are on the black list. And none of them get back on Google nearly as quickly as rap genius did.
If Google applied these rules consistently with all websites, I would have no problem with it, but they don't. This breaks the myth that Silicon Valley is a meritocracy - as it shows that the connections you have are as important as raw merit, if not more
You will be surprised by the amount of time people take to work seriously on fixing their penalty.
I have helped over 40 websites recover from Google penalty in the last 7-8 months. 80% of the websites seek help only after they have screwed up atleast one reconsideration request without taking the necessary steps.
Google typically responds to penalty reconsideration requests within a week, often less than a week. So if you have taken the right action and have submitted a really solid reconsideration request, its totally possible to get out of a penalty in under 2 weeks. Also, the backlink count was under 200K which is a reasonably manageable.
Rap Genius could have saved some time using tools like scrapebox to perform some of the scraping activities. But thats another story.
The only problem with this is that there's no real course of communication with google. They make it a matter of policy to not provide customer service.
"in 2003 when Denise Griffin, the person in charge of Google’s small customer-support team, asked Page for a larger staff. Instead, he told her that the whole idea of customer support was ridiculous. Rather than assuming the unscalable task of answering users one by one, Page said, Google should enable users to answer one another’s questions."
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/3/
Fairness does not exist in real life. Screaming "unfair" will not help you achieve anything. It's such a ridiculous situation for me. All these guys are sitting on the line, raging at real life because popular culture brain washed them.
Exactly. Everything about how Google handled this is wrong, in my opinion. I couldn't care less about RapGenius - they're just a symptom of the underlying problem which is we don't have any real competition in the search engine market, and we're paying for it with unfair antics like this. Longer thoughts here: http://peebs.org/2014/01/04/we-need-viable-search-engine-com...
Very much so. Google's decisions are starting to have impacts on other companies' bottom lines which easily run into the millions of dollars.
Just as a thought experiment ... how tempting do you think it would be for Google to do the following:
1) Run a query to identify all companies that cut their AdWords spending over 50% over the last year.
2) Look at which of these companies are now getting significant numbers of click from organic results.
3) Find out what is causing them to rank high organically.
4) Penalize them using a generic message and refuse on principle to answer any inquiries as to why.
Apart from (anec-)data that seems to be pointing towards this already happening; should we be OK as a market with this approach? Especially when considering that the rules are so vague that almost every site is guaranteed to break some of Google's guidelines?
>Apart from evidence that seems to be pointing towards this already happening;
Please provide this evidence. I am getting a bit tired of this misinformation. Organic search and paid search are silo'd. To say that Google favors advertisers in the organic results or the other way round, is simply not true. It would destroy Google's credibility.
>how tempting do you think it would be for Google
It approaches conspiracy thinking. I love that, but I think HN is not the place. You are basically accusing a company of a very evil act, without proper evidence. Do you realize that many Googlers frequent this site? It would be a shame if all they get to read are conspiracy theories and baseless accusations.
>Especially when considering that the rules are so vague that almost every site is guaranteed to break some
Maybe if you want to spam or manipulate, then these rules are vague. Maybe when you don't read the guidelines then they are vague. I bet that if you can point to a rule that almost every site breaks, without them knowing, then Google will adjust that rule to be more clear.
You can not please them all.
>Penalize them using a generic message and refuse on principle to answer any inquiries as to why.
You can certainly not please the spammers that were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and then take to the internet to say that Google is unfair, and that the big brands get away with anything.
If I think of a lot of things my users would search for and try to create valuable information for them concerning those queries... is that valuable content or are those doorway pages?
If I give when someone few months of my service for free when they write a nice article with a link to my site... is that good customer service or a link scheme?
If I create a press release on PR Web and link to my service with an appropriate keyword ... is that participating in a link scheme?
None of these cases are all that clear cut and I for one am not comfortable with Google being the judge, jury and executioner.
> It approaches conspiracy thinking.
That's not the point. The point is that Google is a massive company wielding massive power.
When it comes to fighting a penalization their position is that they don't need to defend their decisions, implying that they can be trusted not to abuse their position and hence deserve to have the final say, legally, over these decisions.
I don't buy that and think it's about time that contesting Google penalties in court becomes a regular thing.
> If I think of a a lot of things my users would search for and try to create valuable information for them concerning those queries... is that great content or are those doorway pages?
Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages
that clearly and accurately describe your content.
Think about the words users would type to find your pages,
and make sure that your site actually includes those words
within it.
Doorway pages are typically large sets of poor-quality
pages where each page is optimized for a specific keyword
or phrase.
Some examples of doorways include:
Having multiple domain names targeted at specific regions
or cities that funnel users to one page
Templated pages made solely for affiliate linking
Multiple pages on your site with similar content designed
to rank for specific queries like city or state names
>If when someone writes a nice article with a link to my site I give them a a few months of my service for free... is that good customer service or a link scheme?
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings.
A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable
explaining what you've done to a website that competes
with you, or to a Google employee. Another useful test is
to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if
search engines didn't exist?"
Any links intended to manipulate PageRank or a site's
ranking in Google search results may be considered part of
a link scheme and a violation of Google’s Webmaster
Guidelines. This includes any behavior that manipulates
links to your site or outgoing links from your site.
Large-scale article marketing or guest posting campaigns
with keyword-rich anchor text links can negatively impact
a site's ranking in search results.
The best way to get other sites to create high-quality,
relevant links to yours is to create unique, relevant
content that can naturally gain popularity in the Internet
community.
Effectively promoting your new content will lead to
faster discovery by those who are interested in the same
subject. Avoid: attempting to promote each new, small
piece of content you create; go for big, interesting
items. Avoid: involving your site in schemes where your
content is artificially promoted to the top of these
services. Avoid: spamming link requests out to all sites
related to your topic area. Avoid: purchasing links from
another site with the aim of getting PageRank instead of
traffic.
> If I create a press release on PR Web and link to my service with an appropriate keyword ... is that participating in a link scheme?
Links with optimized anchor text in articles or press
releases distributed on other sites can negatively impact
a site's ranking in search results.
Note: I wouldn't expect links from press release web
sites to benefit your rankings, however.
If there is evidence that Google gives special treatment to Adwords customers in organic search then this could be verified as a lie. As long as this evidence remains nothing more than accusations and suspicions, then I choose to believe Google that there is no teacup orbiting Venus. It seems unlikely, but not impossible. I am willing to sway my view when I get evidence. Till then, I will treat it as a common newbie myth.
Every single startup I've worked for, one of the objectives was to befriend Matt Cutts so you would have a quick line to getting stuff like this fixed. Seems like a reasonable amount of power to give one person/company...
I want to give both Rap Genius and Google the benefit of the doubt.
I like to believe that Google checked the link profile again and found a large amount of low-quality links removed. Google would not remove a penalty if the spammy links were still abundant. So that they are out of a manual penalty is justified.
Rap Genius showed good intentions to comply with the guidelines. They went out of their way to clean up their act. These were no doorway pages or elaborate linking schemes with their own servers. It was a Linking Bieber Scheme that is considered greyhat in the industry, and after this, will probably be less popular.
This was a large and visible PR drama. Of course both Rap Genius and Google were on top of things. Google never stated that this was to be a month-long ban. We don´t know how those thousands of other sites were penalized. Maybe the large majority is so spammy/crappy that they simply won´t rank near the top with their spammy links removed, on the merits of their content and audience alone. For sites that are entirely build on manipulating SERPs, then yeah, a Google penalty can seem permanent. To me, that is an ok thing.
About the connections. Sure they help. I don´t see what is wrong though with leveraging your connections when there are millions on the line. Maybe a connection humbly asked: Hey, we effed up, how can we restore trust? This thread makes it sound like the connections pressured Google into removing the penalty. That seems unlikely if we all give the benefit of the doubt.
This was not greyhat. This was blackhat. Paying money for inbound links on keywords that trasnfer page rank (don't include NOFOLLOW) has been blackhat for a LONG time.
It was Panama hat. Rap Genius did not pay money, they offered a tweet. In a crude and obvious enough way to be a little scheme-y. Which unfortunately for RG was picked up in the media.
"even I was scratching my head to figure out if this was actually a Google violation or not. Rap Genius’s apology post had the company deciding itself that maybe it violated guidelines that links should be “editorially placed." - Danny Sullivan.
Paying with a Tweet from an account with a large number of followers (which definitely has value) instead of money is still paying. At best, it's basically a link exchange, which is also not allowed.
Is it so inherently wrong to prioritize a high-profile case of a popular site?
Merit is not a synonym for equality. From a user perspective that decision might surely have a lot of merit.
I have mentioned this before in this thread, I'll do it again. I AM really happy for rap genius.
I also view this post from RapGenius as a kind of a PSA.
They used the reasonable doubt argument, and won, they could have kept quiet about it. But, they let people know that others could appeal on reasonable doubt too.
Which is commendable!
Unfortunately, the underlying message some people miss when they feel this is about bashing RapGenius is that it is not.
The outrage is against Google. More specifically about 3-4 things:
1. Google has penalized sites for way lesser, and refused to reconsider, even when reasonable doubt was jarringly obvious (ex. some sites affected by panda/penguin algo updates targeted towards content/blog farms were penalized for as less as having similar posts type of intra-site linking as all content farms were using it)
2. Google will never apply this reasonable doubt argument for anyone in the future, unless they have friends like the investors at Andreessen Horowitz.
3. Google has given no indication on how they modified the algorithm for this special circumstance, the question that people are thinking is more in regards with if this was a team decision, or an individual's special favor.
4. It's a slap on the face for all white hat SEO professionals, webmasters and founders who have been burned by Google's no bullshit policy. Again its not about the policy existing, that's just a fact everyone has to work with. It's because now enforcement is clearly optional dependent on connections.
2] How do you know this is the case? Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash? Or maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly and were relisted naturally after submitting like many other companies a reconsideration request.
3] How do you know this was a special case? Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares), are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius?
I don't. I also don't know if this is not the case. Do you? This uncertainty IS the reason for the current loss of faith.
> Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash?
I never said cash exchanged hands. I doubt it did. Can you with a 100% surety say that a special favor of any kind did not occur?
> Maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly
What clean up policy. If there is such a policy why isn't it public, why doesn't anyone know of it? [0]
> (RapGenius was) relisted naturally
A manual modification of the algorithm is not what has been established as natural over the last decade+.
> Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares)
Ah, but know tens of these sites that were penalized, as in know 'em in and out, know the whole team, know of every SEO practice they implemented, these only include those that were penalized for having site structures similar to content farms (themes, permalinks and similar post type cross linking between posts) that were not even replied too let alone getting a chance. I also know a lot of SEO professionals who don't know any site that was afforded this (I emailed 'em, if I hear of one I'll update the post).
These sites were all with 300K+ uniques a month && 1MM+ pageviews/month.
HN is not my only source of information and news.
> are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius
Yes.
edit: [0] the only tool that I know Google allows webmasters to use to reduce potential penalty is the disavow links tool[1]. In the past I have seen this only useful for people who were targeted by link bombing etc. at times it was because a SEO practioner did in fact use some shady link sources.
Kudos to RapGenius for talking about it in their blog post, nonetheless, the results were still too quick (not judging rapgenius or their connections... only targeting Google).
At the point where you start suggesting that Matt Cutts was bribed [or accepted a favor], you know you've left the land of rationality and entered into wholesale speculation. Your argument is on the face ridiculous, but just to be clear: 1) Matt Cutts is very wealthy and doesn't need any favors. 2) Matt Cutts once penalized Google's own Chome site for improper links. If there were ever any conflict of interest that ever existed, that would be it, yet Matt went ahead with the penalty.
> At the point where you start suggesting that Matt Cutts was bribed
When did I do that?
I have not and am not suggesting that Matt Cutts or anyone at Google took a bribe of any kind whatsoever.
I have on the other hand said that there is some uncertainty if favors may have been given/used to expedite the process of re-listing.
Which if true, in itself looks really bad, simply because of the position of authority Google sits at.
Pray tell, when did a favor for a friend, acquaintance or anyone for that matter, regardless of their alleged wealth or social standing come to be defined as bribery/monetary value exchanging hands?
Or quite literally if I go by a dictionary: an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual. Example: "I've come to ask you a favor". Synonyms: service, good turn, good deed, kindness, act of kindness, courtesy.
To further elaborate to address your failure to understand a semantic line of argument:
1) The terms Favor and Bribery are not interchangeable.
2) I have only used the word favor.
3) I have insinuated[1] that there is possibility[2] of an alleged[3] favor having occurred in expediting[4] the re-listing of RapGenius, and that this may have happened due to good connections from the VCs.
4) If true, this is not in any way illegal, by the law of the land (as opposed to bribery[6], which is illegal). And this would simply be a moral wrong doing to others who cannot use this speedy service based. This is due to the position of power Google has on web start-ups, websites and businesses.
5) In addressing your previous comment I stated that none of my statements can or should be construed[5] as referring to bribes or any thing of monetary value, this includes gifts.
Meanings and Definitions:
[0] Favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual
[1] Insinuate - suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way
[2] Possibility - a thing that may happen or be the case
[3] Allege - claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case
[4] Expedite - make (an action or process) happen sooner or be accomplished more quickly
[5] Construe - interpret (a word or action) in a particular way
[6] Bribe - a sum of money or other inducement offered or given in this way
You missed my point again. The semantic line of argument is pointless. Favor and bribery are interchangeable because my argument holds for either case.
So you're saying they were given a Blueprint to fix their mishaps but got off based on Reasonable Doubt before they went thru with the recommended plan of action?
I suppose it's just a Hard Knock Life for companies that don't have prominent investors backing them. It's almost as if the investors pulled an American Gangster type situation on Google.
Well I suppose at the end of the day this is a reminder to Blackhat SEO users to Watch The Throne.
Just to hijack on one of your points: "it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful."
This is painfully true, and I know it has been discussed in prior discussions. Rap Genius is without a doubt THE BEST lyrics site available, hands down. Even if the other sites weren't ad-ridden scammy buggy shitty websites, if they got their acts together and actually TRIED, Rap Genius would still be top dog.
I don't care for the attitudes or personalities of the people in charge, and I am absolutely disgusted that they felt the need to scam their Google rank, but I am willing to see that some infractions can be rectified through penance, and am happy to know that they will not be forced to shut down because of this fiasco.
> "To save a drowning man, he must first give you his hand"
is very wrong from anything I ever read about the topic. Drowning leads to involuntary reactions that cannot be controlled, like trying to climb on the person trying to save you, endangering them as well. That's why approaching and grabbing a drowning person from behind is suggested, and maybe even knocking them out if need be. (unless you can throw them a lifesaver or something else they can grab safely, of course)
BTW, it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful.
Er, what? You suggesting that Google execs are benchmarking the productivity of google searches? There are a million other "substitutes"...hence the shady SEO...
Google is constantly improving the search results. If factors, such as a low bounce rate and high dwell time, show that a site is popular and useful, why not rank it higher?
People tend to think in binary: A site is either spam or no spam. But spam is much more complex. A site can be 90% good and 10% bad. A site can turn spammy without their intention: comment spam, hacked sites. A site can pull out all the stops to hide their link buying. A site can be useful to have in index, regardless of some spammy behavior.
In order to judge if something is better, it presumes absolute reference points. In otherwords, google ranks the "productivity", generally. And then only later, refines the relative merits within a sub-class. (And if this was true, it would have nothing to do with Rap Genius.)
Avoiding the (questionable) debate on the productive capacity of planet-earth...the "model" of what customers' "really need" is questionable. Do they need (1) information that is factually correct?; and/or (2) do they need the actually meaning or interpretation of (1). And if its true a subset need (2) what is the ratio of (2/1)?
Should their investors not have made calls? However, it should be noted that they did their part.
One of my favorite quotes is this: "To save a drowning man, he must first give you his hand"
If the Rap Genius guys were incompetent and did not do their part in removing the links so quickly (see main story for technical details) there would be little or nothing their investors would have been able to do about that.
BTW, it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful. I'm sure many searched had rapgenius appended to it. So the lesson is, make your app so good that when Google delists you, it will make them look bad.
Thankfully?, there is also a precedence for other offenders to use. if you can detail you have atoned for your sins and Google insists your you must do a certain time, you know where to turn to.
BTW, this is Hackernews, and I look forward to the discussion of the (de)merits of how they scrapped and analyzed 177,000 links and not espousing of anger that they survived the punishment.
I'm sure Mahbod (my favorite) and co have learned that you do not go 'daaawging' when you are in a hole. I wish them success.