Comments on: Google Kills Bush’s Miserable Failure Search & Other Google Bombs

By: erdogduemlak

erdogduemlak — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:58:07 +0000

Although I agree in principy with what you’re saying, you’ve glossed over the importance of a large link network, which we all knew before there were any worthwhile search engines, which is TRAFFIC without the search engine itself.

By: pcayata

pcayata — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:14:25 +0000

An intelligent person in the WH information factory would have banned the word to avoid the inevitable repeated perdition.Thanks kale kapı

By: serkcan

serkcan — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:41:01 +0000

An intelligent person in the WH information factory would have banned the word to avoid the inevitable repeated perdition.

By: tercume

tercume — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:14:52 +0000

Kind of blows away the idea of keyword optimized links doesn’t it? Not too crazy about that, Google.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:03:39 +0000

What a great, well researched article. I still can not really understand how google will eliminate googlebombing: Do they reduce the priority of all linkt texts or are the blacklisting googlebomb-keywords? I really don’t know….

Best regards!

By: eve

eve — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:07:09 +0000

Does this mean that I can now stop boycotting Google?

By: JuanTanomera

JuanTanomera — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:44:05 +0000

Interesting though, isn’t it, that someone at the White House hasn’t figured out that the word “failure” ought to be a forbidden word on their site?

Why? Because presence of the word “failure” will simply confirm the validity of outside references.

Need proof? Search “failure” on Google today and you will find the White House right at the very top because of a quotation from the president asserting that Congress is courting “failure”.

An intelligent person in the WH information factory would have banned the word to avoid the inevitable repeated perdition.

By: Steve Amundsen

Steve Amundsen — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:53:17 +0000

I find Matt’s comments most interesting. It is clear to me that Google is spending a lot of time and resources to determine relevance on what is real, and not contrived. Intelligent link analysis and intelligent website and webpage analysis do not and can not exist in separate vacuums. Diffusing the Googlebombs (through an automated process, no less!) shows the world that Google is becoming more intelligent at providing true relevance. Any honest SEO professional should stand up and cheer. Kudos to Matt and his team of truth diggers!

By: Matt Cutts

Matt Cutts — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:38:35 +0000

Jonathan, while this change is targeted specifically at Googlebombs, it doesn’t change the fact that Google pays attention to search engine optimization (SEO) as well.

Mark, you’re correct that that would be SEO and not a Googlebomb. But that’s a nofollow’ed link, so it wouldn’t affect Google’s ranking for that phrase which, as you know, happens to be an ongoing SEO contest. :)

By: The Fire Resistant Hamster

The Fire Resistant Hamster — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:28:08 +0000

Yeah I can see the ‘over time’ factor, but that would mean that you can still create a ‘bomb’… it’d just have to be really tactfully implemented (over time), taking some of the fun and use out of it. Or would that go in the direction of SEO-practices again? Ah well, at least Google gives us enough stuff to blog about. xD