12 ms·

I do not understand why people are offended that they came back quickly AFTER doing a bit of penance. Should their investors not have made calls? However, it s

I do not understand why people are offended that they came back quickly AFTER doing a bit of penance. Should their investors not have made calls? However, it should be noted that they did their part. One of my favorite quotes is this: "To save a drowning man, he must first give you his hand" If the Rap Genius guys were incompetent and did not do their part in removing the links so quickly (see main story for technical details) there would be little or nothing their investors would have been able to do about that. BTW, it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful. I'm sure many searched had rapgenius appended to it. So the lesson is, make your app so good that when Google delists you, it will make them look bad. Thankfully?, there is also a precedence for other offenders to use. if you can detail you have atoned for your sins and Google insists your you must do a certain time, you know where to turn to. BTW, this is Hackernews, and I look forward to the discussion of the (de)merits of how they scrapped and analyzed 177,000 links and not espousing of anger that they survived the punishment. I'm sure Mahbod (my favorite) and co have learned that you do not go 'daaawging' when you are in a hole. I wish them success.

sbreaking6 13y ago
Ehh, the story is the double standard google is showcasing. The earlier story about Expedia and this outcome tell it well. This is rapgenius. If it had to cross the line why on something so materially insignificant.
holyjaw 13y ago
Just to hijack on one of your points: "it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful." This is painfully true, and I know it has been discussed in prior discussions. Rap Genius is without a doubt THE BEST lyrics site available, hands down. Even if the other sites weren't ad-ridden scammy buggy shitty websites, if they got their acts together and actually TRIED, Rap Genius would still be top dog. I don't care for the attitudes or personalities of the people in charge, and I am absolutely disgusted that they felt the need to scam their Google rank, but I am willing to see that some infractions can be rectified through penance, and am happy to know that they will not be forced to shut down because of this fiasco.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
grimlck 13y ago
Because it is a double standard. There are thousands of sites which get blacklisted by Google. I'm sure all of them fix their errors really quickly once they realize they are on the black list. And none of them get back on Google nearly as quickly as rap genius did. If Google applied these rules consistently with all websites, I would have no problem with it, but they don't. This breaks the myth that Silicon Valley is a meritocracy - as it shows that the connections you have are as important as raw merit, if not more
- OoTheNigerian 13y ago
  In life there is always a bias. When that bias is against you, you should learn how to fight back. This is the PERFECT time for anyone who has done penance and is still being blacklisted by Google to document it all and go to the press. There are A LOT of people/journalists waiting to jump on a story that shows Google has double standards. But first they must be willing to do their part by documenting these facts and reaching out the journos. It will not come to them. Like I quoted "to save a drowning man.....
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    The only problem with this is that there's no real course of communication with google. They make it a matter of policy to not provide customer service.
    - aaronwall 13y ago
      "in 2003 when Denise Griffin, the person in charge of Google’s small customer-support team, asked Page for a larger staff. Instead, he told her that the whole idea of customer support was ridiculous. Rather than assuming the unscalable task of answering users one by one, Page said, Google should enable users to answer one another’s questions." http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/3/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/3/
  - blumkvist 13y ago
    Have a like, sir! Fairness does not exist in real life. Screaming "unfair" will not help you achieve anything. It's such a ridiculous situation for me. All these guys are sitting on the line, raging at real life because popular culture brain washed them. I can't believe I'm saying this, but What a bunch of stupid nerds!
001sky 13y ago
BTW, it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful. Er, what? You suggesting that Google execs are benchmarking the productivity of google searches? There are a million other "substitutes"...hence the shady SEO...
- blauwbilgorgel 13y ago
  Google is constantly improving the search results. If factors, such as a low bounce rate and high dwell time, show that a site is popular and useful, why not rank it higher? People tend to think in binary: A site is either spam or no spam. But spam is much more complex. A site can be 90% good and 10% bad. A site can turn spammy without their intention: comment spam, hacked sites. A site can pull out all the stops to hide their link buying. A site can be useful to have in index, regardless of some spammy behavior.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    In order to judge if something is better, it presumes absolute reference points. In otherwords, google ranks the "productivity", generally. And then only later, refines the relative merits within a sub-class. (And if this was true, it would have nothing to do with Rap Genius.) Avoiding the (questionable) debate on the productive capacity of planet-earth...the "model" of what customers' "really need" is questionable. Do they need (1) information that is factually correct?; and/or (2) do they need the actually meaning or interpretation of (1). And if its true a subset need (2) what is the ratio of (2/1)? And only then does this framework make sense.
bushido 13y ago
I have mentioned this before in this thread, I'll do it again. I AM really happy for rap genius. I also view this post from RapGenius as a kind of a PSA. They used the reasonable doubt argument, and won, they could have kept quiet about it. But, they let people know that others could appeal on reasonable doubt too. Which is commendable! Unfortunately, the underlying message some people miss when they feel this is about bashing RapGenius is that it is not. The outrage is against Google. More specifically about 3-4 things: 1. Google has penalized sites for way lesser, and refused to reconsider, even when reasonable doubt was jarringly obvious (ex. some sites affected by panda/penguin algo updates targeted towards content/blog farms were penalized for as less as having similar posts type of intra-site linking as all content farms were using it) 2. Google will never apply this reasonable doubt argument for anyone in the future, unless they have friends like the investors at Andreessen Horowitz. 3. Google has given no indication on how they modified the algorithm for this special circumstance, the question that people are thinking is more in regards with if this was a team decision, or an individual's special favor. 4. It's a slap on the face for all white hat SEO professionals, webmasters and founders who have been burned by Google's no bullshit policy. Again its not about the policy existing, that's just a fact everyone has to work with. It's because now enforcement is clearly optional dependent on connections.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  2] How do you know this is the case? Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash? Or maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly and were relisted naturally after submitting like many other companies a reconsideration request. 3] How do you know this was a special case? Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares), are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius?
  - bushido 13y ago
    > How do you know this is the case? I don't. I also don't know if this is not the case. Do you? This uncertainty IS the reason for the current loss of faith. > Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash? I never said cash exchanged hands. I doubt it did. Can you with a 100% surety say that a special favor of any kind did not occur? > Maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly What clean up policy. If there is such a policy why isn't it public, why doesn't anyone know of it? [0] > (RapGenius was) relisted naturally A manual modification of the algorithm is not what has been established as natural over the last decade+. > Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares) Ah, but know tens of these sites that were penalized, as in know 'em in and out, know the whole team, know of every SEO practice they implemented, these only include those that were penalized for having site structures similar to content farms (themes, permalinks and similar post type cross linking between posts) that were not even replied too let alone getting a chance. I also know a lot of SEO professionals who don't know any site that was afforded this (I emailed 'em, if I hear of one I'll update the post). These sites were all with 300K+ uniques a month && 1MM+ pageviews/month. HN is not my only source of information and news. > are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius Yes. edit: [0] the only tool that I know Google allows webmasters to use to reduce potential penalty is the disavow links tool[1]. In the past I have seen this only useful for people who were targeted by link bombing etc. at times it was because a SEO practioner did in fact use some shady link sources. Kudos to RapGenius for talking about it in their blog post, nonetheless, the results were still too quick (not judging rapgenius or their connections... only targeting Google). [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Off-topic, but > "To save a drowning man, he must first give you his hand" is very wrong from anything I ever read about the topic. Drowning leads to involuntary reactions that cannot be controlled, like trying to climb on the person trying to save you, endangering them as well. That's why approaching and grabbing a drowning person from behind is suggested, and maybe even knocking them out if need be. (unless you can throw them a lifesaver or something else they can grab safely, of course)

sbreaking6 13y ago

Ehh, the story is the double standard google is showcasing. The earlier story about Expedia and this outcome tell it well. This is rapgenius. If it had to cross the line why on something so materially insignificant.

holyjaw 13y ago

Just to hijack on one of your points: "it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful." This is painfully true, and I know it has been discussed in prior discussions. Rap Genius is without a doubt THE BEST lyrics site available, hands down. Even if the other sites weren't ad-ridden scammy buggy shitty websites, if they got their acts together and actually TRIED, Rap Genius would still be top dog. I don't care for the attitudes or personalities of the people in charge, and I am absolutely disgusted that they felt the need to scam their Google rank, but I am willing to see that some infractions can be rectified through penance, and am happy to know that they will not be forced to shut down because of this fiasco.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

grimlck 13y ago

Because it is a double standard. There are thousands of sites which get blacklisted by Google. I'm sure all of them fix their errors really quickly once they realize they are on the black list. And none of them get back on Google nearly as quickly as rap genius did. If Google applied these rules consistently with all websites, I would have no problem with it, but they don't. This breaks the myth that Silicon Valley is a meritocracy - as it shows that the connections you have are as important as raw merit, if not more

OoTheNigerian 13y ago
In life there is always a bias. When that bias is against you, you should learn how to fight back. This is the PERFECT time for anyone who has done penance and is still being blacklisted by Google to document it all and go to the press. There are A LOT of people/journalists waiting to jump on a story that shows Google has double standards. But first they must be willing to do their part by documenting these facts and reaching out the journos. It will not come to them. Like I quoted "to save a drowning man.....
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  The only problem with this is that there's no real course of communication with google. They make it a matter of policy to not provide customer service.
  - aaronwall 13y ago
    "in 2003 when Denise Griffin, the person in charge of Google’s small customer-support team, asked Page for a larger staff. Instead, he told her that the whole idea of customer support was ridiculous. Rather than assuming the unscalable task of answering users one by one, Page said, Google should enable users to answer one another’s questions." http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/3/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/3/
- blumkvist 13y ago
  Have a like, sir! Fairness does not exist in real life. Screaming "unfair" will not help you achieve anything. It's such a ridiculous situation for me. All these guys are sitting on the line, raging at real life because popular culture brain washed them. I can't believe I'm saying this, but What a bunch of stupid nerds!

001sky 13y ago

BTW, it also helped that people really found Rap Genius useful. Er, what? You suggesting that Google execs are benchmarking the productivity of google searches? There are a million other "substitutes"...hence the shady SEO...

blauwbilgorgel 13y ago
Google is constantly improving the search results. If factors, such as a low bounce rate and high dwell time, show that a site is popular and useful, why not rank it higher? People tend to think in binary: A site is either spam or no spam. But spam is much more complex. A site can be 90% good and 10% bad. A site can turn spammy without their intention: comment spam, hacked sites. A site can pull out all the stops to hide their link buying. A site can be useful to have in index, regardless of some spammy behavior.
- 001sky 13y ago
  In order to judge if something is better, it presumes absolute reference points. In otherwords, google ranks the "productivity", generally. And then only later, refines the relative merits within a sub-class. (And if this was true, it would have nothing to do with Rap Genius.) Avoiding the (questionable) debate on the productive capacity of planet-earth...the "model" of what customers' "really need" is questionable. Do they need (1) information that is factually correct?; and/or (2) do they need the actually meaning or interpretation of (1). And if its true a subset need (2) what is the ratio of (2/1)? And only then does this framework make sense.

bushido 13y ago

I have mentioned this before in this thread, I'll do it again. I AM really happy for rap genius. I also view this post from RapGenius as a kind of a PSA. They used the reasonable doubt argument, and won, they could have kept quiet about it. But, they let people know that others could appeal on reasonable doubt too. Which is commendable! Unfortunately, the underlying message some people miss when they feel this is about bashing RapGenius is that it is not. The outrage is against Google. More specifically about 3-4 things: 1. Google has penalized sites for way lesser, and refused to reconsider, even when reasonable doubt was jarringly obvious (ex. some sites affected by panda/penguin algo updates targeted towards content/blog farms were penalized for as less as having similar posts type of intra-site linking as all content farms were using it) 2. Google will never apply this reasonable doubt argument for anyone in the future, unless they have friends like the investors at Andreessen Horowitz. 3. Google has given no indication on how they modified the algorithm for this special circumstance, the question that people are thinking is more in regards with if this was a team decision, or an individual's special favor. 4. It's a slap on the face for all white hat SEO professionals, webmasters and founders who have been burned by Google's no bullshit policy. Again its not about the policy existing, that's just a fact everyone has to work with. It's because now enforcement is clearly optional dependent on connections.

res0nat0r 13y ago
2] How do you know this is the case? Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash? Or maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly and were relisted naturally after submitting like many other companies a reconsideration request. 3] How do you know this was a special case? Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares), are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius?
- bushido 13y ago
  > How do you know this is the case? I don't. I also don't know if this is not the case. Do you? This uncertainty IS the reason for the current loss of faith. > Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash? I never said cash exchanged hands. I doubt it did. Can you with a 100% surety say that a special favor of any kind did not occur? > Maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly What clean up policy. If there is such a policy why isn't it public, why doesn't anyone know of it? [0] > (RapGenius was) relisted naturally A manual modification of the algorithm is not what has been established as natural over the last decade+. > Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares) Ah, but know tens of these sites that were penalized, as in know 'em in and out, know the whole team, know of every SEO practice they implemented, these only include those that were penalized for having site structures similar to content farms (themes, permalinks and similar post type cross linking between posts) that were not even replied too let alone getting a chance. I also know a lot of SEO professionals who don't know any site that was afforded this (I emailed 'em, if I hear of one I'll update the post). These sites were all with 300K+ uniques a month && 1MM+ pageviews/month. HN is not my only source of information and news. > are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius Yes. edit: [0] the only tool that I know Google allows webmasters to use to reduce potential penalty is the disavow links tool[1]. In the past I have seen this only useful for people who were targeted by link bombing etc. at times it was because a SEO practioner did in fact use some shady link sources. Kudos to RapGenius for talking about it in their blog post, nonetheless, the results were still too quick (not judging rapgenius or their connections... only targeting Google). [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Off-topic, but > "To save a drowning man, he must first give you his hand" is very wrong from anything I ever read about the topic. Drowning leads to involuntary reactions that cannot be controlled, like trying to climb on the person trying to save you, endangering them as well. That's why approaching and grabbing a drowning person from behind is suggested, and maybe even knocking them out if need be. (unless you can throw them a lifesaver or something else they can grab safely, of course)