4 ms·
I don't think that those who are not skilled with SEO should get a free pass from Google because they can't get their shit together. The santorum definition is
by DTrejo 15y ago
I don't think that those who are not skilled with SEO should get a free pass from Google because they can't get their shit together.
The santorum definition is a media campaign, just like any other. I don't see why it should be penalized because it attempts to spread what some might consider the distatefullness of Santorum's political views.
- smackfu 15y agoShould a presidential candidate have to be skilled at SEO to get their site listed first for their name? Or should Google's algorithm be the skilled one?
- eropple 15y agoWhen it's competing against a completely legitimate neologism? Certainly.
- cabalamat 15y ago> Should a [X] have to be skilled at SEO to get their site listed first for their name? Yes. The internet should work the same for everyone, whether they are running for president or are merely John Q. Citizen.
- smackfu 15y agoThe point is that Google is supposed to return the result people want for a given search result, not the result that has the best SEO. This big picture gets lost sometimes.
- tptacek 15y agoThe Santorum "problem" link is a Google bomb. You can call ANY attempt to game Google's SERPs a "media campaign, just like any other". Spam is spam.
- mitchellhislop 15y agoBy definition from the webspam team, its not. Its SEO. Google bombs are getting someone else's site to rank. [Citation: http://searchengineland.com/should-rick-santorums-google-problem-be-fixed-93570 http://searchengineland.com/should-rick-santorums-google-pro... , about half way down]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- paulhauggis 15y agoI would be interested to see if someone did the same thing with Obama. My guess is that since Google is in bed with the Obama administration, we would never see anything like this. The majority of people are supporting it because they hate rick Santorum and don't want him to become president. It also makes me question the validity of the opposition. Rather than trying to win with logic and reason, many resort to mud-slinging, rumors, and false information. Tactics I despise.
- NTH 15y agoI agree that such tactics are not helpful for a rational, adult conversation. However, if someone is spreading hate-speech about gays on religious grounds, he is far beyond the reach of logic and rationality.
- DTrejo 15y agoI recommend reading the whole article — it explains why you are wrong, and how there is no "bedding" involved in this situation. The explanation is about halfway through the article (ctrl-f "google bomb").
- paulhauggis 15y agoGoogle isn't causing this. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if there were anything negative related to Obama like this, Google would remove it. My hunch is correct (taken from the above poster): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/michelle-obama-photo-goog_n_368760.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/michelle-obama-phot... This is an example of state-controlled media (IE: Google is in Bed with the Obama administration). How is this in any way okay?
- pandaman 15y agoIt has been done already: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/michelle-obama-photo-goog_n_368760.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/michelle-obama-phot... Your guess is correct.