google bombing?

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/columns/25sims_d1.html

2>Google bombing gives weblogs new influence

March 25, 2002

Navel-gazing has risen to new heights with the success of weblogs, which are
online diaries that mix important personal epiphanies with links to cool
findings.

And now an odd consequence of weblogs and the cross-links between them has
emerged. It turns out that webloggers have a greater influence on Google’s
search results than ordinary Web pages do, and the potential to manipulate
those results – called Google Bombing – is coming to light.

Google Bombing is different from Google Whacking, a fun little pastime where
you try to discover some combination of words that delivers one and only one
search result.

Google Bombing plays off the search engine’s methodology for ranking Web
pages in its results, specifically its tendency to consider how other sites
point to a page.

Other search engines have organized and ranked Web pages based on keywords
that the site’s author puts in meta tags, or by the usage of terms on a
page. But this is easy to abuse by sticking a bunch of unrelated (though
often searched for) terms into your meta tags, things like “Liv Tyler” or
“nude celebrities.”

Google figured out an intelligent way to get around this. A page’s ranking
depends on how many other sites link to it, and whether they link to it from
their front page. It also considers how many other sites link to those
sites, so a popular site linking to your page will do more for it than a
deserted one. Links are considered, in essence, votes. The more sites with
lots of votes themselves vote on your site, the better your site does in
rankings.

Webloggers, who post frequently and link actively to each other’s sites,
have figured out they can influence Google’s rankings. John Hiler, a
weblogger who has a Web design firm in Manhattan, wrote about these
so-called Google Bombs on his site, MicroContentNews.com.

Hiler tells of a weblogger named Matt Haughey who used the technique to
strike back at a company called Critical IP, which had called him at home
after mining his phone number from the central database of domain name
holders.

Haughey posted a message on his home page, “Critical IP sucks” with HTML
code linking back to his site. He asked other bloggers to take the code and
post it on their sites. When they did, Google interpreted the cross links
between these popular and frequently updated sites as a vote of confidence
and, with no human intervention, ranked Haughey’s site highly. Within 48
hours of him launching the prank, a Google search for Critical IP, returned
Haughey’s site as the #1 result, along with his headline, “Critical IP
sucks.”

As webloggers become aware of their ability to manipulate the most-respected
search engine on the Web, they’re sure to find other reasons to do so. Hiler
identifies four: humor, ego, money and justice.

I can relate to the ego factor: I have a strange sense of pride over the
fact that a Google search on “manpurse” returns a page from my personal site
as the top result.

I brought this up with a fellow I know who is an active blogger with a
fairly popular site linking to interesting things he’s found online that
day. When I asked what he thought of Google Bombing, he said he didn’t see
it as abuse, really. The weblog community, he said, is a collection of
really bright folks, and if they vote with their links, then what they’re
voting on is probably important.

I find webloggers bright and interesting folks, and I tend to agree with
them much of the time. But they’re hardly representative: like me, they lean
toward the geeky and they lean toward the left.

In that sense, they are no better (and perhaps worse) a filter on What’s
Important and What’s True than the editors at mainstream news outlets, the
traditional gatekeepers of information.

More avaricious possibilities loom: many businesses would gladly pay a team
of webloggers to aggressively cross-link keywords among themselves, with
links to that business’ site - a cost-effective form of advertising that
Google will have to figure a way to route around if it wants to remain
objective and respected.

Hiler’s point is that, even if you couldn’t care less what webloggers have
to say, you’re being influenced by them if you rely on Google.


Rodney Blackwell - site owner/administrator

http://T-ShirtCountdown.com http://TalkT-Shirts.com/
http://ihateclowns.com/ http://Globie.com/
http://DomainJunkies.com/ http://reservoirfrogs.tk
http://GotPaintball.com/ http://CircleRPrinting.com

Re: google bombing?

Yeah, I was going to post about this after reading it yesterday. The
Press Democrat is the local paper at my parent’s house (where I was
yesterday).

Makes you want to pay a bunch of webloggers to link to your site, huh?

Rodney Blackwell wrote:
>
> http://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/columns/25sims_d1.html
>
> 2>Google bombing gives weblogs new influence
>
> March 25, 2002
>
> Navel-gazing has risen to new heights with the success of weblogs, which are
> online diaries that mix important personal epiphanies with links to cool
> findings.
>
> And now an odd consequence of weblogs and the cross-links between them has
> emerged. It turns out that webloggers have a greater influence on Google’s
> search results than ordinary Web pages do, and the potential to manipulate
> those results – called Google Bombing – is coming to light.
>
> Google Bombing is different from Google Whacking, a fun little pastime where
> you try to discover some combination of words that delivers one and only one
> search result.
>
> Google Bombing plays off the search engine’s methodology for ranking Web
> pages in its results, specifically its tendency to consider how other sites
> point to a page.
>
> Other search engines have organized and ranked Web pages based on keywords
> that the site’s author puts in meta tags, or by the usage of terms on a
> page. But this is easy to abuse by sticking a bunch of unrelated (though
> often searched for) terms into your meta tags, things like “Liv Tyler” or
> “nude celebrities.”
>
> Google figured out an intelligent way to get around this. A page’s ranking
> depends on how many other sites link to it, and whether they link to it from
> their front page. It also considers how many other sites link to those
> sites, so a popular site linking to your page will do more for it than a
> deserted one. Links are considered, in essence, votes. The more sites with
> lots of votes themselves vote on your site, the better your site does in
> rankings.
>
> Webloggers, who post frequently and link actively to each other’s sites,
> have figured out they can influence Google’s rankings. John Hiler, a
> weblogger who has a Web design firm in Manhattan, wrote about these
> so-called Google Bombs on his site, MicroContentNews.com.
>
> Hiler tells of a weblogger named Matt Haughey who used the technique to
> strike back at a company called Critical IP, which had called him at home
> after mining his phone number from the central database of domain name
> holders.
>
> Haughey posted a message on his home page, “Critical IP sucks” with HTML
> code linking back to his site. He asked other bloggers to take the code and
> post it on their sites. When they did, Google interpreted the cross links
> between these popular and frequently updated sites as a vote of confidence
> and, with no human intervention, ranked Haughey’s site highly. Within 48
> hours of him launching the prank, a Google search for Critical IP, returned
> Haughey’s site as the #1 result, along with his headline, “Critical IP
> sucks.”
>
> As webloggers become aware of their ability to manipulate the most-respected
> search engine on the Web, they’re sure to find other reasons to do so. Hiler
> identifies four: humor, ego, money and justice.
>
> I can relate to the ego factor: I have a strange sense of pride over the
> fact that a Google search on “manpurse” returns a page from my personal site
> as the top result.
>
> I brought this up with a fellow I know who is an active blogger with a
> fairly popular site linking to interesting things he’s found online that
> day. When I asked what he thought of Google Bombing, he said he didn’t see
> it as abuse, really. The weblog community, he said, is a collection of
> really bright folks, and if they vote with their links, then what they’re
> voting on is probably important.
>
> I find webloggers bright and interesting folks, and I tend to agree with
> them much of the time. But they’re hardly representative: like me, they lean
> toward the geeky and they lean toward the left.
>
> In that sense, they are no better (and perhaps worse) a filter on What’s
> Important and What’s True than the editors at mainstream news outlets, the
> traditional gatekeepers of information.
>
> More avaricious possibilities loom: many businesses would gladly pay a team
> of webloggers to aggressively cross-link keywords among themselves, with
> links to that business’ site - a cost-effective form of advertising that
> Google will have to figure a way to route around if it wants to remain
> objective and respected.
>
> Hiler’s point is that, even if you couldn’t care less what webloggers have
> to say, you’re being influenced by them if you rely on Google.
>
> –
> Rodney Blackwell - site owner/administrator
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> http://T-ShirtCountdown.com http://TalkT-Shirts.com/
> http://ihateclowns.com/ http://Globie.com/
> http://DomainJunkies.com/ http://reservoirfrogs.tk
> http://GotPaintball.com/ http://CircleRPrinting.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------


Jay Tierney – jay@jaytierney.com

Re: google bombing?


Re: google bombing?

here’s one of the earlier articles:


Rodney Blackwell - site owner/administrator

http://T-ShirtCountdown.com http://TalkT-Shirts.com/
http://ihateclowns.com/ http://Globie.com/
http://DomainJunkies.com/ http://reservoirfrogs.tk
http://GotPaintball.com/ http://CircleRPrinting.com

“Winston” <wd@winston.org> wrote in message
news:a7rpci$l73$1@www.t-shirtcountdown.com
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/13/141202&mode=thread
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1868000/1868395.stm
>
>

Re: google bombing?

“Jay Tierney” <jay@jaytierney.com> wrote in message
news:3CA16457.BE361171@jaytierney.com
> Yeah, I was going to post about this after reading it yesterday. The
> Press Democrat is the local paper at my parent’s house (where I was
> yesterday).
>
> Makes you want to pay a bunch of webloggers to link to your site, huh?

I asked “Critical IP” like in the example and the first ranked page
has only Google page rank 4.

Seems they are not very powerfull.

A top position in an not hard fighted search term is nothing.

Before I pay 10 web loggers, I would much more likely pay
You for a link on one of Your rank 6 pages.

My theory says, that each rank is about 5 times stronger
than one smaller rank.

This gives about a power difference from 10 million from
0 to 10.

Google shows only integer numbers, but the difference in
power between 5 and 5.99 is about 1:5


Roland Mösl
http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine

Re: google bombing?

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
news:a7ro6f$jbt$1@www.t-shirtcountdown.com
> http://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/columns/25sims_d1.html
>
> 2>Google bombing gives weblogs new influence

Do You know the URL of any webloger?
Would like to see their page rank and link structure


Roland Mösl
http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine

Re: google bombing?

“Jay Tierney” <jay@jaytierney.com> wrote in message
news:3CA16457.BE361171@jaytierney.com
> Yeah, I was going to post about this after reading it yesterday. The
> Press Democrat is the local paper at my parent’s house (where I was
> yesterday).
>
> Makes you want to pay a bunch of webloggers to link to your site, huh?

Look on the results of

term life insurance

You are a Google bomber, only You have much stronger
sites for the task. One link from moovees is strong enough.

So quess what a link from mooves.com is worth.

Maybe there will be a change in the advertising industry.

No banner advertising with dynamic links showing only
the banner on the page

Maybe in the future, the advertising companies will
purchase static links with a text promoting the target
site.

People clicking on the link are not the most important
part of the link. Improving the link popularity in
search engines will be the most important target of
a link.

I have on Friday negotiations about SEO.
If You would have a health related site as
strong as moovees.com, I would suggest them
200 EUR per month only for one link.


Roland Mösl
http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine

Re: google bombing?

“Roland Mösl” <founder@pege.org> wrote in message
news:a7sfba$jtl$1@www.t-shirtcountdown.com
> “Jay Tierney” <jay@jaytierney.com> wrote in message

> Look on the results of
>
> term life insurance
>
> You are a Google bomber, only You have much stronger
> sites for the task. One link from moovees is strong enough.
>
> So quess what a link from mooves.com is worth.

Actually, guess what a link from Yahoo.com is worth. :slight_smile:

Re: google bombing?

“Roland Mösl” <founder@pege.org> wrote in message
news:a7sfba$jtl$1@www.t-shirtcountdown.com
> “Jay Tierney” <jay@jaytierney.com> wrote in message

> Look on the results of
>
> term life insurance
>
> You are a Google bomber, only You have much stronger
> sites for the task. One link from moovees is strong enough.
>
> So quess what a link from mooves.com is worth.

Actually, guess what a link from Yahoo.com is worth. :slight_smile:

Re: google bombing?

Yes, I use moovees.com to promote my other sites. Of course,
technically it’s not google bombing because moovees.com is one of my own
sites promoting another one. It’s also promoting a relevant site for
the search term it uses in the link (in other words: term life insurance
is an appropriate description for term-life-insurance-rate.net)

Roland M=F6sl wrote:
> =

> “Jay Tierney” <jay@jaytierney.com> wrote in message
> news:3CA16457.BE361171@jaytierney.com
> > Yeah, I was going to post about this after reading it yesterday. The=

> > Press Democrat is the local paper at my parent’s house (where I was
> > yesterday).
> >
> > Makes you want to pay a bunch of webloggers to link to your site, huh=
?
> =

> Look on the results of
> =

> term life insurance
> =

> You are a Google bomber, only You have much stronger
> sites for the task. One link from moovees is strong enough.
> =

> So quess what a link from mooves.com is worth.
> =

> Maybe there will be a change in the advertising industry.
> =

> No banner advertising with dynamic links showing only
> the banner on the page
> =

> Maybe in the future, the advertising companies will
> purchase static links with a text promoting the target
> site.
> =

> People clicking on the link are not the most important
> part of the link. Improving the link popularity in
> search engines will be the most important target of
> a link.
> =

> I have on Friday negotiations about SEO.
> If You would have a health related site as
> strong as moovees.com, I would suggest them
> 200 EUR per month only for one link.
> =

> –
> Roland M=F6sl
> http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
> http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine

– =

Jay Tierney – jay@jaytierney.com

Re: google bombing?

Yes, I use moovees.com to promote my other sites. Of course,
technically it’s not google bombing because moovees.com is one of my own
sites promoting another one. It’s also promoting a relevant site for
the search term it uses in the link (in other words: term life insurance
is an appropriate description for term-life-insurance-rate.net)

Roland M=F6sl wrote:
> =

> “Jay Tierney” <jay@jaytierney.com> wrote in message
> news:3CA16457.BE361171@jaytierney.com
> > Yeah, I was going to post about this after reading it yesterday. The=

> > Press Democrat is the local paper at my parent’s house (where I was
> > yesterday).
> >
> > Makes you want to pay a bunch of webloggers to link to your site, huh=
?
> =

> Look on the results of
> =

> term life insurance
> =

> You are a Google bomber, only You have much stronger
> sites for the task. One link from moovees is strong enough.
> =

> So quess what a link from mooves.com is worth.
> =

> Maybe there will be a change in the advertising industry.
> =

> No banner advertising with dynamic links showing only
> the banner on the page
> =

> Maybe in the future, the advertising companies will
> purchase static links with a text promoting the target
> site.
> =

> People clicking on the link are not the most important
> part of the link. Improving the link popularity in
> search engines will be the most important target of
> a link.
> =

> I have on Friday negotiations about SEO.
> If You would have a health related site as
> strong as moovees.com, I would suggest them
> 200 EUR per month only for one link.
> =

> –
> Roland M=F6sl
> http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
> http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine

– =

Jay Tierney – jay@jaytierney.com

Re: google bombing?

Exactly :slight_smile:

Rodney Blackwell wrote:
>
> Actually, guess what a link from Yahoo.com is worth. :slight_smile:


Jay Tierney – jay@jaytierney.com