I have mentioned this before in this thread, I'll do it again. I AM really happy for rap genius.
I also view this post from RapGenius as a kind of a PSA.
They used the reasonable doubt argument, and won, they could have kept quiet about it. But, they let people know that others could appeal on reasonable doubt too.
Which is commendable!
Unfortunately, the underlying message some people miss when they feel this is about bashing RapGenius is that it is not.
The outrage is against Google. More specifically about 3-4 things:
1. Google has penalized sites for way lesser, and refused to reconsider, even when reasonable doubt was jarringly obvious (ex. some sites affected by panda/penguin algo updates targeted towards content/blog farms were penalized for as less as having similar posts type of intra-site linking as all content farms were using it)
2. Google will never apply this reasonable doubt argument for anyone in the future, unless they have friends like the investors at Andreessen Horowitz.
3. Google has given no indication on how they modified the algorithm for this special circumstance, the question that people are thinking is more in regards with if this was a team decision, or an individual's special favor.
4. It's a slap on the face for all white hat SEO professionals, webmasters and founders who have been burned by Google's no bullshit policy. Again its not about the policy existing, that's just a fact everyone has to work with. It's because now enforcement is clearly optional dependent on connections.
2] How do you know this is the case? Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash? Or maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly and were relisted naturally after submitting like many other companies a reconsideration request.
3] How do you know this was a special case? Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares), are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius?
I don't. I also don't know if this is not the case. Do you? This uncertainty IS the reason for the current loss of faith.
> Matt Cutts said they've relisted them quickly because AH slipped Google some cash?
I never said cash exchanged hands. I doubt it did. Can you with a 100% surety say that a special favor of any kind did not occur?
> Maybe RapGenius followed their cleanup policy correctly
What clean up policy. If there is such a policy why isn't it public, why doesn't anyone know of it? [0]
> (RapGenius was) relisted naturally
A manual modification of the algorithm is not what has been established as natural over the last decade+.
> Thousands of sites I'm sure re de/relisted every day that you don't hear about (because they aren't being talked about on HN and no one outside here cares)
Ah, but know tens of these sites that were penalized, as in know 'em in and out, know the whole team, know of every SEO practice they implemented, these only include those that were penalized for having site structures similar to content farms (themes, permalinks and similar post type cross linking between posts) that were not even replied too let alone getting a chance. I also know a lot of SEO professionals who don't know any site that was afforded this (I emailed 'em, if I hear of one I'll update the post).
These sites were all with 300K+ uniques a month && 1MM+ pageviews/month.
HN is not my only source of information and news.
> are you sure none of those get relisted as quickly as RapGenius
Yes.
edit: [0] the only tool that I know Google allows webmasters to use to reduce potential penalty is the disavow links tool[1]. In the past I have seen this only useful for people who were targeted by link bombing etc. at times it was because a SEO practioner did in fact use some shady link sources.
Kudos to RapGenius for talking about it in their blog post, nonetheless, the results were still too quick (not judging rapgenius or their connections... only targeting Google).
At the point where you start suggesting that Matt Cutts was bribed [or accepted a favor], you know you've left the land of rationality and entered into wholesale speculation. Your argument is on the face ridiculous, but just to be clear: 1) Matt Cutts is very wealthy and doesn't need any favors. 2) Matt Cutts once penalized Google's own Chome site for improper links. If there were ever any conflict of interest that ever existed, that would be it, yet Matt went ahead with the penalty.
> At the point where you start suggesting that Matt Cutts was bribed
When did I do that?
I have not and am not suggesting that Matt Cutts or anyone at Google took a bribe of any kind whatsoever.
I have on the other hand said that there is some uncertainty if favors may have been given/used to expedite the process of re-listing.
Which if true, in itself looks really bad, simply because of the position of authority Google sits at.
Pray tell, when did a favor for a friend, acquaintance or anyone for that matter, regardless of their alleged wealth or social standing come to be defined as bribery/monetary value exchanging hands?
Or quite literally if I go by a dictionary: an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual. Example: "I've come to ask you a favor". Synonyms: service, good turn, good deed, kindness, act of kindness, courtesy.
To further elaborate to address your failure to understand a semantic line of argument:
1) The terms Favor and Bribery are not interchangeable.
2) I have only used the word favor.
3) I have insinuated[1] that there is possibility[2] of an alleged[3] favor having occurred in expediting[4] the re-listing of RapGenius, and that this may have happened due to good connections from the VCs.
4) If true, this is not in any way illegal, by the law of the land (as opposed to bribery[6], which is illegal). And this would simply be a moral wrong doing to others who cannot use this speedy service based. This is due to the position of power Google has on web start-ups, websites and businesses.
5) In addressing your previous comment I stated that none of my statements can or should be construed[5] as referring to bribes or any thing of monetary value, this includes gifts.
Meanings and Definitions:
[0] Favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual
[1] Insinuate - suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way
[2] Possibility - a thing that may happen or be the case
[3] Allege - claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case
[4] Expedite - make (an action or process) happen sooner or be accomplished more quickly
[5] Construe - interpret (a word or action) in a particular way
[6] Bribe - a sum of money or other inducement offered or given in this way
You missed my point again. The semantic line of argument is pointless. Favor and bribery are interchangeable because my argument holds for either case.
So you're saying they were given a Blueprint to fix their mishaps but got off based on Reasonable Doubt before they went thru with the recommended plan of action?
I suppose it's just a Hard Knock Life for companies that don't have prominent investors backing them. It's almost as if the investors pulled an American Gangster type situation on Google.
Well I suppose at the end of the day this is a reminder to Blackhat SEO users to Watch The Throne.
I also view this post from RapGenius as a kind of a PSA.
They used the reasonable doubt argument, and won, they could have kept quiet about it. But, they let people know that others could appeal on reasonable doubt too.
Which is commendable!
Unfortunately, the underlying message some people miss when they feel this is about bashing RapGenius is that it is not.
The outrage is against Google. More specifically about 3-4 things:
1. Google has penalized sites for way lesser, and refused to reconsider, even when reasonable doubt was jarringly obvious (ex. some sites affected by panda/penguin algo updates targeted towards content/blog farms were penalized for as less as having similar posts type of intra-site linking as all content farms were using it)
2. Google will never apply this reasonable doubt argument for anyone in the future, unless they have friends like the investors at Andreessen Horowitz.
3. Google has given no indication on how they modified the algorithm for this special circumstance, the question that people are thinking is more in regards with if this was a team decision, or an individual's special favor.
4. It's a slap on the face for all white hat SEO professionals, webmasters and founders who have been burned by Google's no bullshit policy. Again its not about the policy existing, that's just a fact everyone has to work with. It's because now enforcement is clearly optional dependent on connections.