7 ms·

I left a "this isn't true" comment on the original thread but I think the comment will need moderator approval.

OpenAlgorithm 15y ago
Posted this on the original article, but had a feeling you might not return, so here goes: Surely that points a crucial flaw in the system, how can you manually penalize a site and not put any tests in place that would let you know when the reasons for the penalization have been removed. If Jake hadn't filed a reconsideration request he would have continued to be "trusted less" by Google thus presumably receiving less traffic. Google should create a simple algorithm that would alert the webspam team who I presume take the manual action on websites that the reason for penalty has been removed and they should take another manual look at it. As I see it the only reason Jake was informed of such penalization is because he filed a recon request, what about the thousands of other websites who inadvertently had bad links or another reason for penalization on the site and didn't sport the traffic dip and didn't file a request. Maybe I'm wrong, Matt, do Google have these stops/tests/algorithms in place to stop incorrect penalization?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
roshodgekiss 15y ago
Sorry Matt, just approved it then. Thanks for weighing in on this thread, it's really appreciated.
- Matt_Cutts 15y ago
  No worries, happy to clarify.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
redthrowaway 15y ago
Are you at liberty to speculate why those sites may have seen a big dip in Google referrals, or would that be giving away too much of your spam fighting wizardry?
- Matt_Cutts 15y ago
  We can't go into detail about specific signals because we don't want them to be gamed, but we did do a blog post with advice for publishers about this update: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid...
  - lurker19 15y ago
    Huh. Most of those guidelines make sense (but they are so redundant they probably would not pass Panda's tests for readable-content vs keyword-stuffing), but this one stuck me as completely inappropriate, biased, and entering the realm of content manipulation: "Does the article describe both sides of a story?"
  - drakaal 15y ago
    A system of rules which are only partially known, leaves the the advantage in the hands of those with access at the top of the barrel. You really think your ranks are so tight that information doesn't leak? And there for create more harm than good? If the article is untrue, put it in writing. "Matt Cutts says Google doesn't use email as an indicator in search rankings" would kill the story. You haven't said that, so it leaves me to believe that the article is true. And it is only the method of discovery you dislike.
    - skitzzo 15y ago
      actually, he has put in writing that the title of the story isn't true. I still think there are reasonable questions that haven't been answered but I'm not sure we'll actually get answers to those. To be honest, I'm surprised we got this kind of response from Google at all. They generally don't weigh in on SEO theory.
jakeludington 15y ago
Matt you left a "this isn't true" without actually saying what about my article isn't true. In fact, you singled out one sentence in the article as being untrue, which would suggest you consider the rest of the article to be true.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > you singled out one sentence in the article as being untrue, which would suggest you consider the rest of the article to be true. This is not even remotely valid reasoning. He weighed in on one part of your article because he's in a special position to know whether or not it's true. Choosing not to weigh in on the rest of the article says nothing about his opinion of the rest of it.
skitzzo 15y ago
Matt, feel free to answer this in either place but you singled out a sentence in the post and claimed it wasn't true. Then you followed that statement up by saying that the title isn't true. While I most definitely appreciate you weighing in on the issue, I feel you would better serve readers by explaining whether the initial statement, the title, or both are inaccurate. Are you saying email reputation wasn't the reason his site was penalized, that he didn't have a tip from a Google employee, or that email reputation doesn't factor into the search rankings?
lionhearted 15y ago
Hey Matt, It's been said before, but I just wanted to say thanks again for coming into HN and sharing some perspective. It's very cool and insightful and appreciated.

Posted this on the original article, but had a feeling you might not return, so here goes: Surely that points a crucial flaw in the system, how can you manually penalize a site and not put any tests in place that would let you know when the reasons for the penalization have been removed. If Jake hadn't filed a reconsideration request he would have continued to be "trusted less" by Google thus presumably receiving less traffic. Google should create a simple algorithm that would alert the webspam team who I presume take the manual action on websites that the reason for penalty has been removed and they should take another manual look at it. As I see it the only reason Jake was informed of such penalization is because he filed a recon request, what about the thousands of other websites who inadvertently had bad links or another reason for penalization on the site and didn't sport the traffic dip and didn't file a request. Maybe I'm wrong, Matt, do Google have these stops/tests/algorithms in place to stop incorrect penalization?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

roshodgekiss 15y ago

Sorry Matt, just approved it then. Thanks for weighing in on this thread, it's really appreciated.

Matt_Cutts 15y ago
No worries, happy to clarify.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

redthrowaway 15y ago

Are you at liberty to speculate why those sites may have seen a big dip in Google referrals, or would that be giving away too much of your spam fighting wizardry?

Matt_Cutts 15y ago
We can't go into detail about specific signals because we don't want them to be gamed, but we did do a blog post with advice for publishers about this update: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid...
- lurker19 15y ago
  Huh. Most of those guidelines make sense (but they are so redundant they probably would not pass Panda's tests for readable-content vs keyword-stuffing), but this one stuck me as completely inappropriate, biased, and entering the realm of content manipulation: "Does the article describe both sides of a story?"
- drakaal 15y ago
  A system of rules which are only partially known, leaves the the advantage in the hands of those with access at the top of the barrel. You really think your ranks are so tight that information doesn't leak? And there for create more harm than good? If the article is untrue, put it in writing. "Matt Cutts says Google doesn't use email as an indicator in search rankings" would kill the story. You haven't said that, so it leaves me to believe that the article is true. And it is only the method of discovery you dislike.
  - skitzzo 15y ago
    actually, he has put in writing that the title of the story isn't true. I still think there are reasonable questions that haven't been answered but I'm not sure we'll actually get answers to those. To be honest, I'm surprised we got this kind of response from Google at all. They generally don't weigh in on SEO theory.

jakeludington 15y ago

Matt you left a "this isn't true" without actually saying what about my article isn't true. In fact, you singled out one sentence in the article as being untrue, which would suggest you consider the rest of the article to be true.

lotharbot 15y ago
> you singled out one sentence in the article as being untrue, which would suggest you consider the rest of the article to be true. This is not even remotely valid reasoning. He weighed in on one part of your article because he's in a special position to know whether or not it's true. Choosing not to weigh in on the rest of the article says nothing about his opinion of the rest of it.

skitzzo 15y ago

Matt, feel free to answer this in either place but you singled out a sentence in the post and claimed it wasn't true. Then you followed that statement up by saying that the title isn't true. While I most definitely appreciate you weighing in on the issue, I feel you would better serve readers by explaining whether the initial statement, the title, or both are inaccurate. Are you saying email reputation wasn't the reason his site was penalized, that he didn't have a tip from a Google employee, or that email reputation doesn't factor into the search rankings?

lionhearted 15y ago

Hey Matt, It's been said before, but I just wanted to say thanks again for coming into HN and sharing some perspective. It's very cool and insightful and appreciated.