• http://www.edeninteractive.com S.E.M.

    As posted on Aaron Wall (Seobook)

    Maybe Google needs to be transparent on the process of penalty flagging..via Webmaster Tools ..I’m starting to wonder if the end decision at Google still uses human editorial, not the algo, which is why it appears to be favoritism (Big Brands)?

    It would be nice if Google could let site owners get warning flags, with say a 15 day response to fix issues or respond…or at least give the owners of the site time chew out the 3rd party that violates the rules.. Maybe even a public penalty score..(Shaming) which decreases after a period of good behavior. All site owners should be able to query if linking sites are in good standing, and terminate them..not exposing domains to spammy sites. I doubt Google would do this, but it would be fair and transparent.

    If a site is violating the rules or reported by competitors- Google sends its penalty bot over.

    Are we sure this is not a case of a 3rd party company “Unruly” just doing its thing, with no oversight. Like all the other agencies who got caught. the response on your site above said they’re a video company? Google is so big, how can it possibly keep track of everything its partners do?….. This looks like a “too big” to be that stupid scenario…like JCPENNY.

    IF Google built a transparent penalty process, then I will believe, otherwise Aaron and Danny Sullivan may be right.

    Searchengineman

  • S.V.

    This has been happening for a long time. Online advertisers use Minifreelance and other crowd sourcing platform to get positive reviews about themselves or negative reviews about their competitors.

    Facebook likes are blatantly purchased. All sorts of things happen. They come in light only when they get caught.

  • ytsirklin

    Google needs to treat itself no different than it treated JC Penny . I am sure JC Penny didn’t sign up for what they got from their agency.

  • http://Moravek Moravek

    This doesnt surprise me, and if you look at search for CAPTCHA and try to use ADWORDS, you virtually cant get on the page since Google pushes REcaptcha(the one you use below)

  • http://pachollini.posterous.com/ pachollini

    I’ve seen couple of those blog spots and besides they are stupid, they don’t always contain the link, just the video. So they’re probably saying truth that tha campaign isn’t about links, but it’s still pretty crappy.

  • H.L.
  • http://www.jaankanellis.com Jaan

    What was the name of the marketing company Google used?

  • Louise

    Thanx for Google’s Jaw-Dropping Sponsored Post Campaign For Chrome & Google: Yes, Sponsored Post Campaign Was Ours But Not What We Signed-Up For – two sinfully enjoyable reviews of Google’s online campaign.

    On balance, I feel kind of sorry for Google. People have made their fortunes on Google! Before 2008, the history seems to be, regular people made easy $$. Even after, people who are smart about SEO or have had an online presence for years have an advantage. Google has trouble ranking in its own search engine, using regular white hat methods.

    I wish in this case, Google would simply have hired professional browser-testers or enlisted from in-house someone to start a small business on the side and record Chrome features which proved useful or not, something practical.

    With all the ad $$, howcome we can’t get an authentic user experience of the benefit of Chrome to small business?

    Google does alot for small business other than chrome, which I don’t use, so I can’t say anthing about it.

    It’s like, everybody on this planet is against actual work of developing true content, so that someone like me entering the market – the time is already past for easy $$ which my business needs so badly. My content hangs well in Google, because it is true content, and I haven’t got around to placing ads. Google favors its own ads, so clean sites with few to no ads are favored the highest to supply info to hang the search results ads around! Sites where I put Adsense get penalized in Google. Sorry to divurge – that is a different topic.

    But, in the end, I feel sorry for Google for all the businesses it has helped which used spammy techniques, but Google is not allowed to profit in that way. It’s a double standard. Thankn you for listening.

  • TimmyTime

    “On balance, I feel kind of sorry for Google. People have made their fortunes on Google! Before 2008, the history seems to be, regular people made easy $$. Even after, people who are smart about SEO or have had an online presence for years have an advantage. Google has trouble ranking in its own search engine, using regular white hat methods. ”

    On balance I feel sorry for you, you are a lost cause. To start Google is making twice as much money as in 2008 so feel sorry for others not them. That major increase has come at someone’s expense so maybe you should feel bad for them. You also assume that people would not have made money online if it wasn’t for Google. That’s not even worth a response, it’s so flawed.

  • http://txtbrkr.com T.B.

    As Danny mentioned, “the biggest issue is that the campaign produced a lot of garbage content.” For me, the question is how could Google have avoided the bad content issue? I have four ideas on simple things that either Google or its agencies should have done to prevent the weak
    content from going out on our blog here- http://bit.ly/zqUnqZ.

  • http://www.kobashicomputing.com K.C.

    Ok so it produced garbaged content. But what doesn’t when you hand over content to bloggers who are paid to get video views? if anything, the blog owners who created the spammy comments should be embarrassed and their sites penalized. But really, that is all subjective even though you and I can both see it through manual means.

    The reality is, there will always be an issue of quality of content in relation to the advertisement at hand. In a contextual perspective through text, the technology is there via Adsense. However what about video or music. Good luck through automated process. It still requires manual review for any accurracy. And noone is going to sit there watching a 8 minute video and read a blog post to see if they correlate one to one, then, do that for every video that exists on the planet.

    In no way does this indicate that Google was trying to game for search engine results. Its obvious to me they simply purchased video advertising. The rest is what happens when money enters the picture.

    Welcome to the Internet.

  • http://www.atmedia.co A.T.

    Is this google some how trying to prove that they are ethical and don’t try to game the search results?

  • warren

    I think its a bit harsh to say that Google using an outside network is weird and to use this as evidence for inconsistencies in the story. Just recently Google have been attacked for prmoting themselves too much in natural search. Too much of their search page is Google product related etc etc etc. I personally don’t agree with this at all. Google can post whatever they want on their search results as long as its labelled well enough. But now they are trying to avoid the negative press they receive when they promote their own products with their own products by using an outside agency to create a campaign to advertise chrome without using any website within the Google network and you attack them for it. No wonder issues like this arise when someone in the blogiverse will negatively comment on basically anything a big company tries to do.

  • gbfhsghtr

    Chanel and Elsa were equally excited to soak some rays while meeting with some of their biggest fans who lined up for hours to get a spot by the pool. The decorations were full of neon hot pink, light purple, ocean blue, lime and hot orange decorations including inner tubes, towels and Chanel Sunglasses for guests to take home.