4 ms·

The whole article is pretty confusing to me. It's never made at all clear what this event was supposed to be about or why this specific set of people were there

The whole article is pretty confusing to me. It's never made at all clear what this event was supposed to be about or why this specific set of people were there. Presumably it wasn't "invite people who run 'shadowbanned' sites" when they don't acknowledge that there is such a thing. So what was it, then?

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
> Presumably it wasn't "invite people who run 'shadowbanned' sites" when they don't acknowledge that there is such a thing. So what was it, then? Answer: it WAS to invite people who run shadowbanned sites, they just don't acknowledge that there is such a thing.
- DidYaWipe 2y ago
  Which makes no sense. How did they phrase the invitation, then? The writer is too lazy to say.
  - toofy 2y ago
    A few years ago, a guy went super viral with a video of himself getting punched outside of a bar. He cried nonstop and went on the typical outrage media tour. Over and over declaring how unfair it all was “These people attacked me because I wore a hat! They attacked me because the color of my hat!” It seemed super suspicious from the jump, I kept asking myself, “There has to be more to this story, this guy is being incredibly vague, is there more to this?” A couple days after his media circus tour, videos from other people started popping up. these videos told us a little bit more. video after video of this guy—for hours—trying to start fights with dozens of people. multiple videos of him complaining while getting ejected from various bars by bouncers. he spent like 6 hours at many, many bars provoking and then feigned shock when it happened. “my hat. every time i go to this particular city, they physically beat me because they don’t like my hat” … ya left a little bit of important context out eh friend? this blog post feels very similar to me as that guys initial video. something is missing.
    - DidYaWipe 2y ago
      Yep. But someone is coming here to downvote those who raise these simple questions... hm.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I'm gonna need more information here... It WAS to invite shadowbanned sites that they don't acknowledge exist ... why? Is there some other euphemism that they use to describe these sites, and that would make some sense as a group of people to give special attention to?
  - maltelandwehr 2y ago
    In September last year, Google released an update called "Helpful Content Update" (HCU) that was supposed to demote made-for-Google spam websites. Usually, a blog with dozens of articles from cheap authors that are optimized to rank well in Google. Unfortunately, many legitimate niche websites were demoted by this update. Google's Webmaster outreach team (primarily Danny Sullivan, also known as "SearchLiason") has been in contact with people running such legitimate websites. This event was supposed to bring such people together with Product Managers and Engineers at Google. Someone from the data science side at Google, who is probably very far removed from the actual ranking algorithm, said that there was no shadowbanning of domains. That is, of course, total crap and probably just the result of some misunderstanding of what banning, demoting, penalizing, etc., means to different people. The people at Google who actually work on communicating to webmaster never said there was no shadowbanning.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      Thanks, this is a much more helpful comment than most here!
DidYaWipe 2y ago
It's not confusing; it's totally unsupported bullshit. The author claims that a bunch of "shadow-banned" site owners were invited to some summit, but couldn't be bothered to say how this invitation was phrased or delivered. How were the recipients identified, especially when he says the Google person claimed that no such sites existed? This whole thing is an insulting waste of time.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  > How this invitation was phrased or delivered This is irrelevant for the theme. Some could came in a plane and other in a car, but who cares? Is assumed that either they were invited or wouldn't had walked on the building and asked about how improve google for hours. I assume that Google has some level of check-in security at least. > claimed that no such sites existed? claimed that they weren't shadowbanned, that is a different thing. And they were said that only some pages were affected. This means implicitly that google was aware that the webs existed.
  - nailer 2y ago
    It’s irrelevant because reaching out to shadow banned companies does not seem like a rational thing for Google to do and and while we may dislike Google they do at least seem rational. I initially read this article with sympathy, but something isn’t adding up
    - DidYaWipe 2y ago
      I think you meant it's relevant. And that's exactly the point: How do you invite "shadow-banned" site owners specifically, without stating why or how this select group has been identified (and denying that anyone's shadow-banned)? This is an obvious question that's ignored by the article.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - 2y ago

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago

> Presumably it wasn't "invite people who run 'shadowbanned' sites" when they don't acknowledge that there is such a thing. So what was it, then? Answer: it WAS to invite people who run shadowbanned sites, they just don't acknowledge that there is such a thing.

DidYaWipe 2y ago
Which makes no sense. How did they phrase the invitation, then? The writer is too lazy to say.
- toofy 2y ago
  A few years ago, a guy went super viral with a video of himself getting punched outside of a bar. He cried nonstop and went on the typical outrage media tour. Over and over declaring how unfair it all was “These people attacked me because I wore a hat! They attacked me because the color of my hat!” It seemed super suspicious from the jump, I kept asking myself, “There has to be more to this story, this guy is being incredibly vague, is there more to this?” A couple days after his media circus tour, videos from other people started popping up. these videos told us a little bit more. video after video of this guy—for hours—trying to start fights with dozens of people. multiple videos of him complaining while getting ejected from various bars by bouncers. he spent like 6 hours at many, many bars provoking and then feigned shock when it happened. “my hat. every time i go to this particular city, they physically beat me because they don’t like my hat” … ya left a little bit of important context out eh friend? this blog post feels very similar to me as that guys initial video. something is missing.
  - DidYaWipe 2y ago
    Yep. But someone is coming here to downvote those who raise these simple questions... hm.
sanderjd 2y ago
I'm gonna need more information here... It WAS to invite shadowbanned sites that they don't acknowledge exist ... why? Is there some other euphemism that they use to describe these sites, and that would make some sense as a group of people to give special attention to?
- maltelandwehr 2y ago
  In September last year, Google released an update called "Helpful Content Update" (HCU) that was supposed to demote made-for-Google spam websites. Usually, a blog with dozens of articles from cheap authors that are optimized to rank well in Google. Unfortunately, many legitimate niche websites were demoted by this update. Google's Webmaster outreach team (primarily Danny Sullivan, also known as "SearchLiason") has been in contact with people running such legitimate websites. This event was supposed to bring such people together with Product Managers and Engineers at Google. Someone from the data science side at Google, who is probably very far removed from the actual ranking algorithm, said that there was no shadowbanning of domains. That is, of course, total crap and probably just the result of some misunderstanding of what banning, demoting, penalizing, etc., means to different people. The people at Google who actually work on communicating to webmaster never said there was no shadowbanning.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    Thanks, this is a much more helpful comment than most here!

DidYaWipe 2y ago

It's not confusing; it's totally unsupported bullshit. The author claims that a bunch of "shadow-banned" site owners were invited to some summit, but couldn't be bothered to say how this invitation was phrased or delivered. How were the recipients identified, especially when he says the Google person claimed that no such sites existed? This whole thing is an insulting waste of time.

pvaldes 2y ago
> How this invitation was phrased or delivered This is irrelevant for the theme. Some could came in a plane and other in a car, but who cares? Is assumed that either they were invited or wouldn't had walked on the building and asked about how improve google for hours. I assume that Google has some level of check-in security at least. > claimed that no such sites existed? claimed that they weren't shadowbanned, that is a different thing. And they were said that only some pages were affected. This means implicitly that google was aware that the webs existed.
- nailer 2y ago
  It’s irrelevant because reaching out to shadow banned companies does not seem like a rational thing for Google to do and and while we may dislike Google they do at least seem rational. I initially read this article with sympathy, but something isn’t adding up
  - DidYaWipe 2y ago
    I think you meant it's relevant. And that's exactly the point: How do you invite "shadow-banned" site owners specifically, without stating why or how this select group has been identified (and denying that anyone's shadow-banned)? This is an obvious question that's ignored by the article.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2y ago