Page 1 of 2

BMW, wo sind Sie?

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:34 am
by Grim...
I'm guessing that everyone knows about Google removing BMW.de from it's results (or as near as damnit).

Personally, I think that's the wrong thing to do.
It calls into question the integrity of Google's results - what else isn't being displayed when I search?
Also, considering I have to wade through <span style='color:blue' title='I&#39;m naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> like Experts Exchange, Kelkoo and eBay (for every damned product that exists), I think they should set their priorities.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:48 am
by feyd
considering what BMW did, I can't really blame Google.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:49 am
by Moocat
I don't understand why it wasn't a good thing to do. It sends a message that those trying to artificially inflate their page rankings will not be tolerated on their search engine. How is that a bad thing? Google also sends out a warning to offending sites if it could be construed that the site is not actively engaging in such activity (they didn't mean it). However, it's pretty damn hard to make a site as small as that and "accidentally" include a single word 40 times that's not a, and or the.

If they let activity like this happen, I'm pretty sure you'd come up with pr0n pages everytime you wanted to search for a PHP tutorial. I'd rather they filter results and display them accordingly. I used to see lots of results for experts exchange as well I should note, but I haven't seen nearly as many lately. The only eBay results I get are the sidebar ads which don't bother me.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:51 am
by Burrito
one reason why I hate google.

I have a love / hate relationship with them... But crap like this just reinforces the hate side, in a HUGE way. If they didn't make their search algorithm so weighted on LPC among other unethical leading SEO stuff, things like this wouldn't 'have' to happen.

-1 for google on this one.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:53 am
by Grim...
I just don't think it's right that Google gets to choose what result we (it's customers) get to see.

When the word 'Failure' was Google-bombed to point at Dubya's book, all Google did was put up a note explaining why it was happening. I can't see why they didn't get in touch with BMW and say 'Oi. Stop it.'.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:14 pm
by Moocat
Grim... wrote:I just don't think it's right that Google gets to choose what result we (it's customers) get to see.

When the word 'Failure' was Google-bombed to point at Dubya's book, all Google did was put up a note explaining why it was happening. I can't see why they didn't get in touch with BMW and say 'Oi. Stop it.'.
My guess (just my opinion) is that they did get in touch, and BMW didn't like what they had to say so Google took their ball and went home. I mean, they removed the site from the engine AND page ranked it to 0. That to me says they probably gave them a fair chance to shape up. However, I will never know as I wasn't personally involved and only have third party news sources to rely upon which these days...are hardly accurate :p

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:19 pm
by hawleyjr
I'm sure this recent publicity is giving them more hits to their site then Google ever did...

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:25 pm
by Burrito
well this is why it sucks.

If I'm doing a search for bmw, wouldn't you think that bmw.de is a relevant site (if not THE MOST RELEVANT ONE)? Why should sites have to go through the trouble to do what bmw did (ethical or not) to get their page ranked on google?

because of all of the other (not so well-known) sites that are doing the exact same thing only boosting it with a bunch of bogus LPC crap that ranks them higher.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:10 pm
by Chris Corbyn
Hold on a minute guys. It's good not bad.

Everyone loved the way google worked when sites started filling their meta tags with anything in order to push their ranking and google broke that (good!).

Now if this technique has the same effect that false meta tags do then it's good that google are preventing this surely? :? They should design their website better in the first place.

Re: BMW, wo sind Sie?

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:11 pm
by Roja
Grim... wrote:Personally, I think that's the wrong thing to do.
First, read the blog entry that details *why*: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ramping-u ... l-webspam/

Next, key points:

- Its not permanent. In fact, it lasted less than 72 hours.
- Worst case scenario is 180 days, only if the webmaster doesn't respond at all, and doesn't change his tactics.
- "I just don't think it's right that Google gets to choose what result we (it's customers) get to see" : Then use another search engine.
- Its google's algorithm, google's data, google's right to do as they please. If you don't like their actions, use another engine. Its powerful and popular *because* they do what they do.
- They totally set their priorities: By making clear that they will not be lied to, they are telling the net at large to be honest. That results in better search results, and thats what google tries to do.
- Read through the blog posting and tell me HOW they could possibly not weigh the 'fake' results heavier. This is another site weighting itself heavily - not Gooogle overweighing SEO.
- They didn't de-rank them. They removed them from the index. Removing them means they are simply not displayed. Once they stop cheating (apparently, that is already in process), they will be listed again (apparently that is already in process as well), and their rank will be evaulated like everyone else.
- "If I'm doing a search for bmw, wouldn't you think that bmw.de is a relevant site?" - The answer is *NO*. If you read the page, as it was before, the page was NOT relevant. By what standard? By the standard of what content was in the page! There was almost no text giving it relevance to people. There were pictures of cars, and little else. Few pages linked to it, so the only way they could get a rank was to *cheat*. Instead of building a page that was USEFUL to people, they fooled the search engine into thinking it was relevant.

(Note: Being the correct choice for a search is NOT the same as containing relevant information. That mismatch is where your frustration stems from - not Google's actions).

Flat out, if you read the blog, with the explanation, there are only a few reasonable conclusions:

- BMW had a site with virtually zero useful information in text.
- BMW attempted to lie to Google.
- Google, after attempting to fix the situation, removed them from their index.
- BMW in turn said "You are right, we shouldnt do that"
- Google in return said "Welcome back".

No foul at all in the end. An excellent outcome that will result in a page with more informative value for customers.

Re: BMW, wo sind Sie?

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:54 am
by Grim...
Roja wrote:- Its google's algorithm, google's data, google's right to do as they please. If you don't like their actions, use another engine. Its powerful and popular *because* they do what they do.
So the next time Firefox has a security vulnerability on Windows you'll be happy if Microsoft stopped Firefox from working to protect their users?
After all, it's their platform.

Re: BMW, wo sind Sie?

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:07 am
by Roja
Grim... wrote:
Roja wrote:- Its google's algorithm, google's data, google's right to do as they please. If you don't like their actions, use another engine. Its powerful and popular *because* they do what they do.
So the next time Firefox has a security vulnerability on Windows you'll be happy if Microsoft stopped Firefox from working to protect their users?
After all, it's their platform.
Significant difference there: Google isn't a convicted predatory monopolist with over 80% market share.

Natch.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:17 am
by Grim...
/changes subject a little

I wonder how long until Google is termed a 'monopolist'.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:36 am
by m3mn0n
I see no real reason to get upset over this article.
Matt Cutt's Blog wrote:That’s a violation of our webmaster quality guidelines, specifically the principle of “Don’t deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users.”
They purposely broke rules, they got caught, Google took action, justice was served.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:00 am
by Roja
Grim... wrote:/changes subject a little

I wonder how long until Google is termed a 'monopolist'.
At this point, its not even close - something like 40/30/30 between them, yahoo, and MSN.

However, being called one and being convicted of being one (and a predatory one at that) is substantially different.