• http://andrewnealjenkins.com Andrew Jenkins


  • http://www.hireseomanager.com Steven

    The “Not Provided” blocking actually makes us LESS secure. Google hacking has been popular for years for footprinting websites and gathering sensitive information about potential targets.

    A Google search with something like intitle: index.of passwd.bak povides a wealth of information to hackers. Up until this change it was easy to examine analytics to see if anyone was pounding on your site or found documents on the server that should not be there. To avoid detection pen testers would not click on the results for that reason. Now all they have to do is log in with a bogus Google account and examine search after search that you will never see.

  • http://www.sitesell.com KenEvoy

    What a phenomenal article, Danny. It takes someone of your stature to make Google and Bing take notice of insights such as these. But… will they do anything about it?

    Well, humans make up a company. I’m hopeful that Googlers read this and realize that they are party to this. Realistically, though, I Google’s corporate DNA has probably mutated beyond repair.

    Their more likely response is a phone call to you asking, “What the ____ did you write THAT for?”

    Opportunity knocks. Will Bing (or others) open it?

    I believe that Google is nearing a tipping point. The “good guy” image is eroding, replaced by a growing impression of “Google be evil.”

    Many Webmasters have long felt that Google’s openness with Webmasters was merely good PR and clever manipulation. I had considered them cynics in earlier years. Wrong…

    They were “canaries in the mine.”

    My own “good guy” illusion of Google ended when they unilaterally added a “Back to Google” link on every AdSense ad, with no way for publishers to opt-out and with no payment for that click back to google.com.

    It was theft, pure and simple. It stole free exposure on billions of ad impressions and it did not pay what other advertisers paid on those same ads for clicks.

    At that time, the uproar was instant, viral and LOUD. Google removed that indefensible feature. If memory serves, they did so without apology, saying merely that they would revisit the policy at some time in the future.

    What was most striking, though, is how quickly they pulled it… within hours of the growing uproar. Anyone who knows anything about feature releases knows that a company the size of Google could only act that quickly if they were ready with a contingency plan.

    Otherwise, the time to analyze an issue like this, to meet and decide, and to do another release would normally take days if they had not already anticipated this reaction as a strong possibility.

    You can safely bet that a “kill this if it hits the fan” button was in place.

    That can only mean that they KNEW it was wrong. But it was a “CLICK-GRAB” that they could not resist, despite knowing that this was evil theft that hurt publishers.

    Google’s contingency plan worked wonderfully. The uproar disappeared. It’s a brilliant “shut down the controversy” policy, one they use repeatedly to quell noise when it gets too loud (it’s one that politicians should study ;-) ).

    The recent “paid links” scandal by Google was also rapidly shut down by Google’s “blame the agency” response (always a good scapegoat) AND, more importantly, by their decision to penalize itself (Chrome) for search results for a couple of months.

    This “self-penalty” was actually well perceived by many. Clever marketers that they are, this was the only option. Turn lemons into lemonade.

    It was more than damage control. They came out looking like heroes of their principles. Be realistic and picture the conversation in their emergency meeting over this issue.

    A hero does not do the right thing because it was the best strategic move. Heroism is the selfless and optional act of doing right at great peril. There was nothing selfless or optional about Google’s self-penalty.

    Google’s pulling of the “back to Google” AdSense link theft was a watershed moment for me. I was a firm believer in Google and it’s “don’t be evil” motto, of its idealistic view of its mission on the Web.


    Any company that would plunder publishers so blatantly has a mindset that is all wrong. It’s a strong symptom of disease. Many actions since then have only confirmed the diagnosis.

    Yes, they still SAY all the right things when it suits them. But they turn around and DO the wrong things for their own benefit.

    When called on it, they either stonewall or emit ridiculous explanations. And to prevent being called out, they have a new strategy… take away data. Taken together, it’s the mushroom strategy…

    “Keep them in the dark and feed them BS.”

    Google’s withholding link data is strong self-defense. The lofty, noble motives that they claim are false, as you dissected so sharply, Danny.

    I agree totally with your comment that withholding link data is about their fear that it will “reveal weaknesses in its relevancy, rather than potential spam issues.” Your analysis of search results for “Santorum” show how to exploit the same weakness in Google’s algorithm that “Googlebombers” do…

    Create enough links for a search term that is not very competitive (ex., “santorum”) that lead searchers to a misleading and/or damaging page that, in fact, has little or nothing to do with the actual SEARCH INTENT of that term. (Google defines link-bombing more narrowly, to its own advantage, but it’s the same weakness.)

    By doing so, the “linking” factors within Google’s algorithm dominate the small amount of data generated by ALL the other algorithmic factors (since the search term has little competition) combined, manipulating the damaging page into top spot of the SERP.

    Is that a Googlebomb? It depends if you accept Google’s definition of it. I don’t. “Santorum” is a perfect example of DEFEATING SEARCH INTENT (no one is searching for a fictitious word) through a well-coordinated, emotionally charged link scheme. The same technique is used to denigrate trade names commercially.

    Essentially, your own name, be it personal or product, is at risk. Why Google does not shut down this weakness that allows others to damage one’s most important asset (your name) is beyond me.

    Instead of fixing the weakness, they choose to hide it, deny it or (if the noise and embarrassment is loud enough) publicly announce it has been fixed… until the next time.

    What about withholding keyword data?

    Their “privacy” reason must be a lie, since other actions are not consistent with the claim. It would be more accurate to simply say…

    “We have decided to sell privacy to advertisers, but not give it for free to anyone else anymore. It’s our engine and we can do as we like.”

    We would not like it, but we’d at least admire the honesty. Instead, we don’t get the data AND we don’t like the deception.

    They’ve learned a lot since the AdSense fiasco. They are phasing out the data gradually. Only about 10% of searchers were “logged in” currently, so the loss does not seem great. But with their determined push on Google+, tying it across all their tools, that percentage will increase.

    In a few years, there will be virtually no keyword data from Google, not enough to be statistically useful.

    Hopefully, this will give pause to those using Google Plus. If Google ever controlled both social AND search, given the mentality of this company, it would be long-term disastrous.

    Danny, your demolition of their justification needs no further comment. It exposes Google’s hypocrisy for what it is.

    They want ONE-WAY openness only.

    They will continue to manipulate through mistruth, hiding in the darkness of no-data that they create.

    What else did Google take away from us this year, Danny?

    There are many more worrisome Google trends, perhaps the most important being the loading of more and more “Google product” at the top of the SERPS, pushing the organic results below the fold in some cases.

    Publishers are being marginalized.

    This is the biggest takeaway threat of all.

    Publishers cannot afford to be hidden by Google’s quest for ever-greater quarterly gains (a pressure that Brin and Page swore they would never succumb to, when they went public).

    Sure, we can (and should) choose better monetization options than AdSense (there are many — AdSense should be seen as “starter-earning” until you find far better ways to monetize traffic). BUT…

    We cannot afford to be hidden so Google can make yet more billions. THAT is no longer a partnership between publisher and search engine.

    It’s called “being used” without recourse. Which brings me to the final part of your article…

    What is our recourse? What should we do?

    When Google stole exposure and clicks from publishers, they DIRECTLY AND OBVIOUSLY took money out of publishers’ pockets for their own benefit.

    The issues was obvious, inflammatory and simple. The grassroots uproar was spontaneous and it was not going to go away.

    So Google backed down.

    But these issues? They are complicated. The debates are tortuous.

    Arguing with Google is pointless. And movements like withholding information from Google Analytics will not be adopted by many. (If it is, Google will take counter-measures under the guise of some principle or another.)

    In any event, Google gathers so many googol-bytes of data from so many sources that there’s no way to hold back enough to get their attention.

    Expect no groundswell of action here by publishers…

    Yes, money IS being taken from publishers’ pocket, so it should matter just as much as the AdSense caper. But it’s far too subtle and complicated for spontaneous outrage.

    I’d like to expand on your suggestions, Danny, and offer four possible courses of action that MIGHT make a difference…

    1) Anti-trust — Google is vulnerable here, as you point out. Strong arguments can be made about the many ways that Google takes advantage of its monopoly on search to disadvantage others.

    WHO, though, will push this? Who will inform the rather uninformed regulators so that they cannot be snowed by Google’s team of “weathermen?”

    2) Bing — If Bing had a strategic bone in its body, it would recognize its opportunity. THIS is the time for Bing to step up with a true partner mentality and deliver information, tools and support that would win over Webmasters and publishers.

    We live in a digital world. The right product from the right company with the right mentality can sweep Google aside almost as quickly as it swept other engines aside, as rapidly as Facebook did to MySpace. OK, maybe not that quick. But it is certainly possible.

    Google swept into its position with a combination of high-quality Webmaster relations and a superior product. We were the early adopters who made Google “cool.” We helped Google cross the chasm and spread to the “user on the street.”

    Bing should realize who needs to be courted and won over if it hopes to supplant Google.

    3) Media? Not likely. The issues are too complicated for their readers. They prefer “santorum” jokes (expect spreadingsantorum.com to fade in results now that the media is getting too loud — if history holds, expect a manual fix that may or may not be admitted).

    Rule out media unless someone in a high position of authority in the world of search engines leads a strong and public movement that gets the media’s attention through clear, simple encapsulations of the “Google is increasingly evil” trend.

    Publishers and webmasters need a rallying point, someone with instant and strong street-AND-media cred. (Um, Danny? ;-) )

    Flash-mob terminations of Google Plus accounts, for example, would generate media attention (and therefore, Google’s).

    But this needs to be organized. Who will take that lead?

    4) At times like this, “black swans” emerge. What is the next great technology that can revolutionize search? (It’s not Blekko — the quality is not there, at least not yet.)

    There’s nothing for us to do here except jump on “the next Google” with the same intensity that we jumped on the “don’t be evil” Google that we used to love.

    Capitalism is self-correcting. As we’ve seen on Wall Street, those corrections need a little push, be it by legislators or grass-root movements. When Google’s abuses become too great, those opportunities appear.

    The end-user is the ultimate arbiter. Will s/he get sick of seeing Google “becoming” the Web? Will Google lose credibility when a search reveals only Google products? Will nausea be induced by Google Plus being shoved down our throats at ever step of one’s interaction with Google?

    I sure hope so. But I don’t suggest we hope that “something happens.”

    Great opportunities exist for the individual online. Publishers, large and small, have tremendous potential if they deliver original, high-value content that delivers what the end-user wants.

    However, Google’s mindset, their tilting of the playing field, is worrisome. Your voice is loud, Danny. I hope they hear it because “what was withheld in 2011” is only a harbinger of what’s to come.

    Google is no longer a company with WIN-WIN in mind.

    Who will lead the measures required that helps Google see the light of fairness or that helps a competitor emerge that does realize that no one can own the Net?

    Warm regards and with thanks for an especially stellar article,
    Ken Evoy
    Founder, SiteSell.com

  • http://FrugalZeitgeist.com F.Z.

    Setting up my withholding of data from Google Analytics right this minute… Thanks for the in-depth article.

  • http://www.lauraalisanne.com lauraalisanne

    This post (heck it’s a full-blown tome) is so comprehensive and helpful, that I’m asking my entire marketing team to read it ASAP.

  • http://www.seoconsultant.ie Ivan

    Really nice post!!!

    Our Dear ‘ Do no Evil – Google’, no matter how we loved it got really bad. It is especially clear with new guys like Blekko that show more about inbound links that Google ever did.

    It will result in people steadily moving from the Google fanboly club into the group of people who will be aware of and say aloud: ‘Google is very evil’. It did happen to Microsoft, and their share price NEVER vent up after majority of people agreed that ‘$MSFT is Evil’.

    Pity because I did like Google all this years. But when you document what we have suffered – I am not really sure I can say I like them anymore? The moment when the majority of the people think negative is a point of no return. If you do not reinvent someone of a Steve jobs character. And perception of Google isn’t really getting any better overall.

  • Chas

    Great article, Danny;
    As much as Google and Facebook would like to own the internet, they don’t. Microsoft Advertising is a disaster, and I certainly will never use them, again. There are alternatives to
    find backlinks, as you mentioned. There is Alexa, although they are slow on updates and there is Compete(I am not familiar with how good they are; I just know it’s an alternative).
    There are also alternatives to Adwords, such as jumpfly and 7search.
    I will be closing my gmail account this year and plan on patronizing Goliath as little as possible.
    I use Gigablast as my default search engine & only go to the behemoths when I am not happy with the results. I will also check out Blecko~ thanks for the tip.

  • rypher21

    This makes me wonder, im thinking of ways to cope up with this changes..

  • http://linkwhatishr.com Mamun-ar-Rushid

    Interesting article due to we were not aware before & sincerely thinking you for a helpful article and looking forward for your further assistance for beginners.

  • http://www.tielict.com/blog/ Tom Mghendi

    Withholding your own data by opting out of data sharing in Google analytics may work, but probably for a short time only. The platform is Google’s, if they want to use the data, they still can, regardless of whether you have opted out or not. The loss would be yours – not being able to use conversion optimizer and the benchmarking feature.

    Since blekko and other smaller players provide some of this data, we may as well let Google go on with this potentially self-destructive path. With time, blekko’s (or any other tool’s) quality will improve enough to be a viable alternative. And this would be good for the internet (or web) ecosystem.

  • http://www.facebook.com/SEOManoj Manoj Pallai

    Some times even just few days ago I just felt that types issue. So here which one is right? then how I can we measure the exact figure of links?

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/108529133658461221225/ Neil Grainger

    Lots of interesting points here. I’ve been thinking about the keyword referrer data problem and I think Google’s reasons might be a cover, but not for the nefarious reasons people think. I think they’ve hit a technological stumbling block. As the likes of Google+ becomes more popular, more and more people will be logged into a Google account. This is a secure connection by default and as result no referrer data will be sent. Google hasn’t really implemented anything, they’ve just hit a problem they haven’t got a fix for and have decided to call it a privacy feature as a bit of marketing before questions start being asked.

  • http://ianmacfarlane.com/ Ian Macfarlane

    Hi Danny

    A great article, a definite (and troublesome) trend.

    A small correction re Bing – they removed support for the link: (and linkdomain:) operators a long time ago. What that search query you’re showing with one result is doing is a simple keyword match, not a link search.

  • http://www.nathanielbailey.co.uk Nathaniel Bailey

    wow that was one uber long and informative article Danny :)

    Not sure if YSE going is going to help google though, I cant see them creating any tools like that as it would go against the changes they have made to show us (as public searchers) even less information about sites, unless signed into WMT.

    So YSE, means one thing and one thing only in my books, and thats top sites such as OSE and Majestic should now be getting more traffic due to YSE going. Plus I think the info offered at OSE is and always was much better then that of YSE, so no loss to me and Im sure a lot of others feel the same in that respect.

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    Of course, Yahoo! Site Explorer never could show anyone which links Google had indexed or was allowing to pass value.

    SEOmoz’ Linkscape doesn’t show anyone which links Google has indexed (or which links Bing has indexed) or allows to pass value.

    Majestic SEO doesn’t show anyone which links Google and Bing have indexed or allowed to pass value.

    Gazing at backlink reports doesn’t explain search rankings to people. Complaining about the loss of a feel-good tool doesn’t do anything to advance the search engine optimization industry out of the dark ages.

  • http://www.fangdigital.com Jeff Ferguson

    Thanks, Danny… at long last, a respectful, well thought-out, researched, and argued article about these issues that actually provides enough data and insight to actually change my mind on the issues. I was on the side of Google on many of these because, frankly, Google doesn’t have to provide any explanation at all for the changes it makes to its product, especially to the community that is designed to take advantage of its system rather than just use it.

    Consumers should always be the real change catalyst for any business and while we are both, SEOs can often ride on the side that the engines are there for us and us alone. However, as you say early in your article, Google has done plenty for us over the years to make our jobs easier, which again would provide a solid argument for why we should just shut up when they make changes that might make our jobs a little hard for awhile.

    However, your logical arguments on why their “official statements” don’t hold water are enough for me to join the fight. Rather than you and your publication playing the role as the victim or presenting this case as some sort of conspiracy theory, you present facts, and I respect you that much more for your efforts.

  • Kevin Hill

    Google is entrenching, and becoming more evil. At HFT, we saw just about 35% of our organic traffic keywords being blocked. And for what reason – none that I can reasonably understand.

    What I can understand is that google now has a very expensive version of GA that you can pay for. They are also seeing that their competition has diminished from 2 to 1. And time, and time again, Yahoo and Bing have demonstrated that they just can’t grab market share.

    Google loves data. And now the next monetization is getting ready to happen. I have no doubt that Google will relent, and give us amazing tools to look at data.

    At a price….

    and that my friends, is how google explodes and becomes 10 times more profitable than it already is.

  • Klais

    Exceptional post, Danny.

    As far as Google search privacy goes, keep in mind the “loophole” goes beyond just PPC: all mobile and tablet organic searches are currently un-encrypted, and pass referring keyword data as before.

    As explained in my November 2011 SEL column (below), I think Google’s made a strategic decision to purposely avoid inhibiting mobile web development, and to continue providing the mobile keyword data marketers need to build relevant mobile content.

    By year-end, I think that will change: Mobile/tablet organic search privacy will become strategically important, and referring keyword data stripped accordingly. But right now it means PPC and Mobile are both strategically important to Google — and should be to EVERY marketer as well.


    Brian @ Pure Oxygen Mobile

  • http://www.freshlols.com F.L.

    Thank you Danny Sullivan for saying what I’m sure everyone has been thinking in the past 12 months. MUST READ article for every new/old SEOs.

    Goodbye SEO and hello Social Media HaXoRing.

  • http://www.brickmarketing.com Nick Stamoulis

    2011 was certainly a year of great changes within the SEO industry. Our practices had to be revisited and reworked in so many ways. The lack of keyword data was really a huge blow. Google said that it would affect a small percentage of searches, but that’s not what I’m seeing. Depending on the industry, it really could be a significant number. We rely on that data to make not only SEO decisions but business decisions in general.

  • http://www.seochemist.com Oli

    There have been several small blows, but fortunately most ethical SEO seems to have been untouched.

    I am however looking forward to seeing what 2012 will bring!

  • http://www.messagecrafters.net TeriPatrick

    Question: Are there any serious efforts underway to re-imagine the Internet?

    If not, it’s about time to start that discussion. One reason we face challenges now is that the decisions about how to organize access to information is made by technology experts – not people with expertise in business, publishing, community, education, etc. It’s time to think outside algorithm.

    Here are few things that need to change:

    1: Get rid of incentives to clog the web with garbage content. The SEO game, as played by Google’s rules, has had many negative unintended consequences. One of the biggest is the discouragement of true content experts. Why volunteer your time to share your research and insights when you have to expend untold hours marketing your content to rise about the garbage that has been created for no other purpose than to improve search rankings.

    This is a serious issue with far-reaching implications. The internet should improve access to high-quality information. Instead it has begun to bury it under an avalanche of garbage content.

    2. Create financial incentives to contribute high-value resources – including well-organized access to business sites. I don’t know exactly what this should look like, but here is one idea: A local community forum that is maintained by a paid staff and funded by local advertisers. It is interactive, encouraging community engagement – reporting on local issues, community groups, local sports, bands, etc. People in the community who contribute high-quality content receive a financial reward for their efforts. That increases the quality and makes the site a draw for community members. The site should offer tools to help organize meetings, garage sales, fundraisers – to improve engagement. Local businesses would benefit because they would finally have a forum for reaching their local target audience. The ad spend would be more effective for them. The community benefits because they have a way to stay informed and connected locally.

    Here is my point: Google capitalized on a world of free information by organizing access to it. That access has great value – but the approach has begun to destroy the quality of the information. Think newspapers. Great that we can read them for free. Not so great that journalism is no longer a paid profession. Reporters are disappearing along with the newspapers – with huge long-term implications.

    Some how the model has to change to provide a financial incentive for people without trust-funds to make a career out of creating or organizing access to high-quality information. Google is all-in with the algorithm approach. This is one instance in which a computer really can’t replace human effort.

  • http://www.dealhorizon.com John C Sharp

    Great article. Anyone that has recently integrated with any of the APIs from either Yahoo or Google is either nodding or applauding while reading this: the truth is, the data being provided, even by these paid APIs, is almost always incomplete or inaccurate.

    It is possible that Google will indeed come out with a new service that enables paid access to data. But for those of us that ALREADY pay thousands of dollars a month to consume data from subscription APIs, the trust level is dropping fast. Will all the data be shown? Doubtful. It isn’t shown now, and the only way of determining that is to do the kind of analysis this author has done.

    There are alternatives – Majestic SEO, Heardable.com, and others – hopefully, some of these companies will benefit from the lack of data, along with their consumers.

  • http://rockfi.sh steveplunkett

    Thanks for the wrap-up Danny, head down in FOY campaigns, great summary, now i can get back to work.


  • http://siteexplorer.co S.E.

    Wow, I don’t like where this is heading. Great write-up and incredibly verbose.

    +1 for Blekko – I hope somehow they manage to make a much bigger name for themselves.