3 ms·

"If you read the original post closely, it's clear that this is a site asking for a link to be removed--the quoted email isn't from Google." Matt, this is beyo

"If you read the original post closely, it's clear that this is a site asking for a link to be removed--the quoted email isn't from Google." Matt, this is beyond disingenuous. If Bing or Yahoo responded in the same way, I doubt we would hear a ringing endorsement from Google on the subject. You've indicated in other comments that basically your algorithm is everyone else's problem to deal with. You can use whatever words you like, but the actions are what matter. At this point, it sounds more as if Google is concerned with "being right" more so than "doing right".

mike_hearn 12y ago
Now now, I think you're the one being disingenuous. Google's algorithm is not "everyone elses problem". If someone doesn't care about what appears on search result pages, they can just ignore everything search engines say: all their guidelines, all their advice, just chuck it out the window. Your website will still work fine. This blog does not indicate some fundamental breaking of the web. It indicates a guy got a random email from a random website, that he is free to ignore if he wants (and in fact should ignore, because the webmasters in question don't even need to contact him, they can use the disavow tool). No work to do? No problem!
- aaronwall 12y ago
  Your thesis would be true if Google didn't have monopoly marketshare & continue buying default (search / browser) placements in other software.
- jroseattle 12y ago
  > It indicates a guy got a random email from a random website, that he is free to ignore if he wants It's reasonably clear to me this email was anything but random. Take Google out of the picture and this communication never happens. Both the sender and receiver are taking actions with consideration of one single point -- how does this affect my Google search ranking? If Google weren't the literal default entryway into the Internet, your argument would be valid. There is precedence in this scenario as well. Back in the 90s, many people said the same thing regarding Microsoft and attaining placement on the Windows desktop for new shipping PCs. This was a key element of the DOJ trial. The argument that a powerful intermediary has no effect on the conduct of others is simply choosing to ignore certain facts.

mike_hearn 12y ago

Now now, I think you're the one being disingenuous. Google's algorithm is not "everyone elses problem". If someone doesn't care about what appears on search result pages, they can just ignore everything search engines say: all their guidelines, all their advice, just chuck it out the window. Your website will still work fine. This blog does not indicate some fundamental breaking of the web. It indicates a guy got a random email from a random website, that he is free to ignore if he wants (and in fact should ignore, because the webmasters in question don't even need to contact him, they can use the disavow tool). No work to do? No problem!

aaronwall 12y ago
Your thesis would be true if Google didn't have monopoly marketshare & continue buying default (search / browser) placements in other software.
jroseattle 12y ago
> It indicates a guy got a random email from a random website, that he is free to ignore if he wants It's reasonably clear to me this email was anything but random. Take Google out of the picture and this communication never happens. Both the sender and receiver are taking actions with consideration of one single point -- how does this affect my Google search ranking? If Google weren't the literal default entryway into the Internet, your argument would be valid. There is precedence in this scenario as well. Back in the 90s, many people said the same thing regarding Microsoft and attaining placement on the Windows desktop for new shipping PCs. This was a key element of the DOJ trial. The argument that a powerful intermediary has no effect on the conduct of others is simply choosing to ignore certain facts.