• Winooski

    Seems to me that, for a company which makes “non-human intervention” in its algorithmic output a point of great pride, admitting that there’s a search index whitelist is a significant loss of face.

  • http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    @Winooski: “Seems to me that, for a company which makes ‘non-human intervention’ in its algorithmic output a point of great pride, admitting that there’s a search index whitelist is a significant loss of face.”

    I think being accused of whitelisting a site and NOT acknowledging or denying the accusation hurt their credibility more. At this point, Google and Bing are being more open (perhaps due in part to pressure from Rich Skrenta and Blekko) about how the process works.

    At least we know there are no system-wide, permanent whitelists — which I would be far more concerned about than a sub-system-specific, iteration-dependent exception list that buys them time to fix the algorithm. That is reasonable and clearing the air on this topic should help rebuild some of the trust that was lost by their silence.

  • http://www.redmudmedia.com Red_Mud_Rookie

    I don’t have an issue with this at all because I think the algorithms would work better with more human intervention.
    Where I DO have an issue is where sites are blatantly, and I mean blatantly, buying links and not being punished at all.
    Let’s face it, anyone working in a competitive sector like travel or finance who is competing for the “big” search terms like “cheap…” has no choice, but to offer some form of incentive to get links from other sites if you are to compete for top spot or even first page.

    Google themselves did it when they handed out Nexus phones to bloggers!

    I’m not suggesting Google ban all sites ranking for top terms if they have dodgy links, but there is certainly a lot of work to be done in creating a level playing field for sites that don’t have big link building budgets, but which present their websites well and offer a great user experience with quality content.

    Recent initiatives from Google such as the “Block all “Site” Results” is a step in the right direction, but you need to be able to choose whether to block an entire domain or just a particular page.

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/hide-sites-to-find-more-of-what-you.html

  • http://www.seo.net/compare/seo-companies/united-states Artur – SEO.NeT

    @Red_Mud_Rookie,
    The most important law of economics says:
    If there is money to earn there will be people to earn it. So I don’t think the link selling/buying will stop. However they will have to live with the consequences when they got smashed.

  • http://www.redmudmedia.com Red_Mud_Rookie

    @Artur – SEO.NeT Spot on. It won’t stop, especially as there is such a massive opportunity to tap into the growing social media network of friends and family and friends of friends of family and their friends…. “Get 50% of your *enter number* friends on Facebook to “Like” our new product and we’ll send it to you for free!

    I just prefer this social media “links with personality” approach because if your product is good and people like it, you will succeed :-) whereas if you’re Mr Big or mr small and you treat customers badly or sell poor quality products, then you will suffer.