Archive for June, 2012
HALLELUJHA at last there has been some logic in the ways of Google.
Matt McGee recently covered an up close and personal session at SMX with Matt Cutts and blogged about it at search engine land. for me the biggest thing to come out of it is the following quote from Cutts.
The story of this year has been more transparency, but we’re also trying to be better about enforcing our quality guidelines. People have asked questions about negative SEO for a long time. Our guidelines used to say it’s nearly impossible to do that, but there have been cases where that’s happened, so we changed the wording on that part of our guidelines.
Some have suggested that Google could disavow links. Even though we put in a lot of protection against negative SEO, there’s been so much talk about that that we’re talking about being able to enable that, maybe in a month or two or three.
I have been shouting for this for a LONG time, many others have been saying the same thing. The only issue we have to face now is that google are still not showing us all the links they know about.
In some no scratch that, in MANY cases cases this could mean that the very links that are hurting a site, the very links Google is basing its negative views on, are simply not being shown to us, and as a result, we, (the site owner affected) will still be none the wiser.
It is a great move by google to bring this in, and truth be told, they have probably realised just how exposed they are to a law suit for damages. BUT (and this is a big but) they totally must give access to every single link they know about to the webmaster that has verified his site. Otherwise once again we will have been given a brush with no head, and a shovel with no handle, with which to clean up the mess.
I would say this is a pretty much an admission of failing.
Look at this beauty from Matt Cutts.
People have asked questions about negative SEO for a long time. Our guidelines used to say it’s nearly impossible to do that, but there have been cases where that’s happened, so we changed the wording on that part of our guidelines.
Did you read that? they now admit that there have been cases where negative SEO has happened.
So to all those who said it was rubbish.. dream on and admit you were wrong.