In SEOChat forums Brandall has done a nice summary about Google's Matt Cutts' presentation in PubCon. Coming from the horses mouth there are several very interesting issues that tell how google is fighting against spam. Below is a quote from the Brandall's post:
1. He confirmed that Google is now actively identifying reciprical linking strategies, 3-way linking strategies and purchased links, both programatically and by human intervention. He did not say exactly how they were handled, but he made it clear that those links, once identified would not be very valuable. He specifically suggested that is was silly to think that Google does not keep track of sites selling links. He suggests that if you go down the road of buyng links, know that you will likely be buying something of little or no value.
2. He confirmed that humans manually went through every Jagger spam report and manually removed MANY spam sites.
3. He stated unequivically that Google does not and in fact cannot manually add or raise the ranking of a site by hand, but that they can and do manually penalize and/or remove sites for legal reasons or spam.
4. He stated that thinking Google won't notice 3-way linking as easily as reciprical linking is silly.
Although this is good news for all us whitehatters, most of us realize how much real work Google must do before we they can talk seriously about beating spam and SERP manipulation. However saying these issues aloud is a good thing because especially reprocical linking is something many have started to see as an acceptable method for whitehat SEO. As Mr. Cutts says - don't do it.
Who is the enemy of Google? Is it not the SEO?
Us, a enemy? We are mere jesters in corridors of power...
I put this on SC:
This is so elementary, so obvious, and so predictable. I think I figured out what the problem is on this subject. SEO's are to damn smart (high IQ) and they are looking for things to make sense at there level.
Come down a few levels, look lower, and see this all for what it is. Look at it from a Childs point of view. Children say how it is, and no one questions if there is a ring of truth to what they say, do they? Out of the mouth of babes comes the truth. Children see theft clearly, dishonesty clearly, hypocrisy clearly, and without a pretentious spirit.
Get close to the ground with your cheek and look at the land and then use your line of site to make argument to your mind of what makes sense. Please don’t be sold so easy on the pitch of a broken khan. There is danger in always taking things at face value.
Think with your brilliant heart!
Summary time -
Who originally coined the statement; “keep your friends close and your enemies closer?”
Who is the enemy of Google? Is it not the SEO?
Who would be the ambassador of the enemy nation? Who should speak on behalf of the King? Have you not measured history in this respect, that the ambassador is loyal to the King only? Some would say a well-paid puppet, while others would argue admiration for the position given.
Matt Cutt is the ambassador to his King, and the mouthpiece of its agenda. How could anyone be so gullible to think truth would protrude from the mouthpiece of a servant? No one here at SEOmoz is the later.
D
I'm suspiceous of Cutts.
The blog piece on google analytics was a slick sales piece in my mind. A "cool" sales pitch. Google reportedly spent $30 million on Urchin, converted it and is giving it away for free. They don't need to be in that business, don't evidentally want to monetize it for themselves...but they will gain enormous insights into how traffic moves; how traffic moves and how much traffic the other engines generate, how sites work internally, how they convert traffic etc.
Google has enormous calculating power that is way beyond the means of virtually all webmasters and most businesses giving them insights into monetizing the web that no other source has.
Secondly his blog about Jagger, understated the time periods during which Jagger occurred. There are those that started seeing Jagger impacts as of September 22, not in October as he reported. I'm sure he has access to this information. Why he didn't report it, I don't know. But it leaves me suspiceous.
Now he is telling us how google treats spam and ranking. He is a "controlled" voice from the googleplex leaking out limited information they want us to have.
Maybe its accurate, maybe not. I just feel that his comments need to be treated with a healthy bit of suspiceon.
As far as linking you would think there may be ways to ascertain "valid reciprocals" versus "non-valid" reciprocals.
Two sites/businesses that complement one another offer a service to visitors. For instance, one site offers its facilities for weddings, parties etc. It connects with complementary services/sites that offer catering, flowers, table settings, limosine services etc. for the events. The sites provide reciprocals.
It would be a disservice to users to downgrade the sites for offering reciprocals.
Further edification and discussion on this would be appreciated.
Google very carefully controls information coming out of the company. On the most basic level it "under reports back links...making analysis of a bls impossible, when only relying on google information. They have repeated this again and again.
I guess I've turned from an automatic believer of all that he and other reports to one that is very skeptical of their announcements.
Thanks! That IS a fantastic thread. lol