4 ms·

Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.

by ckluis 13y ago

pinko 13y ago
How about just asking, "Hey Matt, can you say something about why you decided spam links should count for negative value instead of 0?" I've never met him, but as demonstrated by his long HN profile, Matt is clearly a nice guy. He's also smart, so he probably thought this exact case through. None of us outside Google really know how this works. None of that means his group didn't make a poor decision in this case, but let's see if we can talk like adults and can learn more before going all "OMFG this is bllsht" on him...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- larrys 13y ago
  "Matt is clearly a nice guy." In a sense he plays the role of a politician. Not able to do much (he is only one google guy after all) and trying to keep the masses feeling that he is acting in their best interest. He can't really be blamed. The bottom line is that none of this has any impact on google anyway. If anything it simply pushes more people to want to pay for paid placement.
josefresco 13y ago
While I tend agree, it sounds too obvious to be a solution. I would suggest that because Google can't detect all bad links, they want to make the ones they do detect "hurt" more. If Google simply zeroed out negative links there would be no repercussions for webmasters building massive amounts of bad links. Sort of like throwing link pasta against the wall. If you build enough crappy links, you will eventually find areas of the web Google has yet to police, therefore you're always slightly ahead. With penalties in place, those bad links might not be worth building because the penalties will outweigh the benefits of building massive amounts of low quality bad links.
tlrobinson 13y ago
FYI, he does (or did, no comments in a few years): https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=MattCutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=MattCutts
- coderdude 13y ago
  It's this https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts
  - tlrobinson 13y ago
    Ah ha, I thought I had seen him around more recently.
- sharkweek 13y ago
  as an FYI -- this is the real Matt Cutts -- https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts and he is quite active
Trapick 13y ago
That's idiotic. If spam links counted for 0 (when caught) there would be no disincentive for everyone to use them. The appropriate way is for them to count negative but have some way of legitimate sites disavowing them at some kind of time or effort cost (oh wait, that's what the system currently is). If you have a better system let's hear it.
- nhebb 13y ago
  There's a huge number of replicated Chinese spam sites (xyz123.com, xyz456.com, mob123.com) that link to my site. I don't know why or when they started linking to my site, but I know that i didn't have anything to do with it. Your position seems to be that it's legitimate that I'm penalized for this. It's hard not to take this issue personally. It's like being falsely accused of a crime and having to pay a fine.
- kruipen 13y ago
  Is the disavow tool not available to those who tried to use spam links and got caught? I suspect the opposite actually. Those who automate link creation, also automate link disavowing. So the spam links probably have more penalizing effect on the innocent. Still probably the right trade-off from GOOG's perspective, as long as black hat SEO has bigger negative effect on relevance than negative SEO.

Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.

by ckluis 13y ago

Matt if you read hackernews. This is bullshit. Spam links should count for 0 value not negative value.

pinko 13y ago

How about just asking, "Hey Matt, can you say something about why you decided spam links should count for negative value instead of 0?" I've never met him, but as demonstrated by his long HN profile, Matt is clearly a nice guy. He's also smart, so he probably thought this exact case through. None of us outside Google really know how this works. None of that means his group didn't make a poor decision in this case, but let's see if we can talk like adults and can learn more before going all "OMFG this is bllsht" on him...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
larrys 13y ago
"Matt is clearly a nice guy." In a sense he plays the role of a politician. Not able to do much (he is only one google guy after all) and trying to keep the masses feeling that he is acting in their best interest. He can't really be blamed. The bottom line is that none of this has any impact on google anyway. If anything it simply pushes more people to want to pay for paid placement.

josefresco 13y ago

While I tend agree, it sounds too obvious to be a solution. I would suggest that because Google can't detect all bad links, they want to make the ones they do detect "hurt" more. If Google simply zeroed out negative links there would be no repercussions for webmasters building massive amounts of bad links. Sort of like throwing link pasta against the wall. If you build enough crappy links, you will eventually find areas of the web Google has yet to police, therefore you're always slightly ahead. With penalties in place, those bad links might not be worth building because the penalties will outweigh the benefits of building massive amounts of low quality bad links.

tlrobinson 13y ago

FYI, he does (or did, no comments in a few years): https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=MattCutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=MattCutts

coderdude 13y ago
It's this https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  Ah ha, I thought I had seen him around more recently.
sharkweek 13y ago
as an FYI -- this is the real Matt Cutts -- https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts and he is quite active

Trapick 13y ago

That's idiotic. If spam links counted for 0 (when caught) there would be no disincentive for everyone to use them. The appropriate way is for them to count negative but have some way of legitimate sites disavowing them at some kind of time or effort cost (oh wait, that's what the system currently is). If you have a better system let's hear it.

nhebb 13y ago
There's a huge number of replicated Chinese spam sites (xyz123.com, xyz456.com, mob123.com) that link to my site. I don't know why or when they started linking to my site, but I know that i didn't have anything to do with it. Your position seems to be that it's legitimate that I'm penalized for this. It's hard not to take this issue personally. It's like being falsely accused of a crime and having to pay a fine.
kruipen 13y ago
Is the disavow tool not available to those who tried to use spam links and got caught? I suspect the opposite actually. Those who automate link creation, also automate link disavowing. So the spam links probably have more penalizing effect on the innocent. Still probably the right trade-off from GOOG's perspective, as long as black hat SEO has bigger negative effect on relevance than negative SEO.