6 ms·
The Matt Cutts Debunking Flowchart
- swah 15y agoFrom his videos, it would appear as if Matt Cutts is a Nice Guy. Can anyone confirm this?
- dfield 15y agoMatt is an incredibly nice guy.
- rustybrick 15y agoHe is a nice guy, for sure.
- akat 15y agoJust curious...What tool was used to create this flowchart?
- windsurfer 15y agoBased on the quick shadows, manually-placed arrows, and PNG metadata I would say Inkscape.
- sullivandanny 15y agoSnagIt Editor. Not the best choice, but it's what I had :)
- windsurfer 15y agoNeat! I didn't know it was so powerful.
- DaveMebs 15y agoIt is interesting to note that it is impossible for a theory spouted by nutjobs to be true in this flowchart. A non-nutjob must endorse a theory before it enters the realm of possibly true. Danny must have an incredibly low opinion of conspiracy theorists and a high opinion of Google's practices. ;)
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- j_baker 15y agoJust out of curiosity, what are the outrageous claims that have come up?
- tristanperry 15y agoI've been a bit AFK in the past couple of weeks, but one that surfaced last night/early this morning was that if a website sends out a newsletter and too many people flag it for spam, you could get banned from Google. There's probably been (many) more, too (there's usually plently).
- dwforbes 15y agoThat scenario was that people received the email but simply didn't open it, instead of explicitly marking it as spam. I have hundreds of emails that I voluntarily signed up for but never actually have any interest in reading. If gmail actually did count these "read or unread" percentages to weight the likelihood of a given user reading it, that's actually pretty clever.
- ableal 15y agoBy coincidence, I had this leftover tab up next: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2600933 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2600933 - Matt Cutts denying "Email Reputation Causes Penalties in Google Search Results".
- itswindy 15y agoJust out of curiosity, what are the outrageous claims that have come up? A lot of them come from sudden up and downs, with no apparent changes by the webmaster, as Google does "quality" changes. So people wonder and Google loves to spread FUD.
- davidw 15y agoHrm. This is why SEO seems like there's a high BS quotient. In some situations, it sounds more like a bunch of norsemen huddled around a fire trying to explain their harsh and unpredictable world via a series of angry and capricious gods, rather than rational, scientific people. And in many ways, that's how it is - you do some experiments, and by the time you have something definitive (you think, at least), the rules change and your experiments are potentially no longer valid. Even Einstein would be no match for a world where C kept changing at random.
- ssharp 15y agoMatt Cutts must now debunk the myth of the "Matt Cutts Debunking Flowchart", per the "Matt Cutts Debunking Flowchart".
- rhizome 15y ago-5 points for frame-breaking.
- rbarooah 15y agoThis chart makes it look as though Matt's fine as long as they're no worse than Bing. Somehow I doubt it's as simple as that.
- Matt_Cutts 15y agoI love that Danny Sullivan put an explicit "Is it on Hacker News?" question on the flowchart. :)
- e1ven 15y agoThe best part of that is where it's placed in the chart- It implies that the users of HN a subset of the overall nutjob population, but one worth addressing at least ;)
- DaveMebs 15y agoActually, it implies the opposite. If someone who is not a nutjob is spouting the theory it will get debunked, regardless of placement on Hacker News. If Hacker News were in the nutjob category, it would be irrelevant in the flowchart. The chart would simply point from "repeated by a nutjob"->"Am I bored?" Hacker News only takes effect if a nutjob's theory winds up on Hacker News, which based on the chart, is more akin to "Are they a nutjob?"->"No" (but not quite the same). So, while something does not need to be on Hacker News to be debunked, placement on Hacker News will result in a theory being debunked. Thus, the article implies that Hacker News is a community made up of people who are expressly not nutjobs.
- ez77 15y agoTo me the chart simply considers HNers influential nutjobs.