|
 Oh..er oops.. I mean 'Link Bombs'
I was just posting this over at SEO Yak and figured I would put a quick heads up here as well. Apparently Google Bombing has been dealt a blow of its own; Matt Cutts of Google (fame?) mentioned a recent piece of his on the Google Webmaster Blog that discusses what Google is doing to defuse this nasty little sport. There is also mention of a breakdown from Danny Sullivan I am still reading that one..
Sounds interesting
more to come after I get some sleep and read up more...
Ok still up... who needs sleep anyways, right? well it seems Matt and Co are givin it the ol Hidey Ho and simply passing off the update (why the fuss Matt?) and his gang merely slid along by letting us know that they are, improving our analysis of the link structure of the web Which is really great kids because it will likely be minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs or so were told.
..and thats about it. The rest is a mini-history lesson and the basics of Gbombing and the Plexs feelings about it. Pretty standard stuff here. GoogleBombing was a passing fancy for me that lost its luster fast
oh well
nothing to see here
Move along
Over in Dannys article MC was quoted as saying, It's completely algorithmic, we're not going to claim it's 100 percent perfect. Danny then gives a deeper background and analysis of GBombing
nodding off now
OH Wait!!!!
GreyWolf decided to drop by.. and had some organic Matt Baiting going on and Matt chimed in some more in the comments with;
"santorum isn't a Googlebomb, it's straight SEO. Here's the difference. With a Googlebomb, you're causing someone else's site to rank. With SEO, you're promoting your own site. So spreadingsantorum.com is promoting themselves for [santorum], which is SEO.
This change isn't targeting SEO, so it doesn't impact people trying to rank their own sites. Another historical example is [french military victories]. That's not a Googlebomb; that's one person trying to SEO their own page to #1 for a phrase.
A Googlebomb is when you're trying to cause *someone else's* site to rank for phrases like "???? ??????" or "talentless hack" or "mouton insignifiant" or whatever.
Yeah.. howl on that Wolfman or Matts taking all his marbles and going home.
Next up - Bill Slawski chimed in with a reference to a favorite paper of mine on Phrase-based indexing in an information retrieval system. To which Bill added
Instead of [BOMB otherwords], it tries to locate "related phrases" (some examples in the patent application). It also provides a means of weighing the strength of related phrases.
At which point Matt DID take his marbles away
by saying;
Bill, that's an interesting find. I don't think we plan to talk about it in more detail than saying it's improved link analysis, so unfortunately I can neither confirm nor deny that links to a given page are interacting with bit vectors.
..and for me?? Its been another LOOONNNGG Nite
L8TR
ADDED; How about a little more follow up?? Sure...why not
First Matt was sighted over at Threadwatch reassuring theFounder that;
"this wasn't manual, it was an algorithm. It also counteracts the Googlebomb for e.g. [waffles] that brought up John Kerry, as well as Googlebombs in other languages such as ëçóôÝò ."
My next encounter was Adam Lasnik over at WebMaster World who was also dealing with the issue of it being manual or algorithmic,
"As noted in the blogpost, it was done algorithmically. We really prefer to tackle things scalably like that... just makes more sense long-term."
SOOOOOOO
. So there we have it kiddies
IT WAS AN ALGO TWEAK Ok? - or was it? Break out the Tin Foil Ma... it's hat makin time!
thats all I have at the moment
if you find more, be sure to let me know. It's sum fine entertainment - 
More ADDED Jan. 27; Matt also did a little more follow up on his Blog saying;
"this change only targets Googlebombs, not anything else. MaxD, Im not saying that all anchortext weighting has been changed, only Googlebombs. HitProf gave a good example in the comments on Dannys post. He said that a Dutch Googlebomb for [raar kapsel] has been counteracted, for example."
And
"technically that example is not a Googlebomb, because the site in question *wants* to show up for the query. A Googlebomb happens when someone pushes *someone elses* site up for a query. Another example is [french military victories]. Thats not a Googlebomb, because the #1 site wants to rank at #1. Thats just straight-out SEO. This change only targets Googlebombs."
I do have to wonder about the explanation tho. How does the algo know who wants to show up for a query and who doesnt? Arent natural, editorially given links, simply a reflection of peoples interest that pushes *someone elses* site up for a query?
Algo - Manual Algo - Manual --- I know! They manually adapted the algo to find the Bombs in question
bwaa ha ha ha ha ha
..and thats it, I do believe
or is it?
JAN 28; Apparently not - I just ran into a secondary Howl from the Wolf.. so here is some further musings on the Mysteries of the GoogleBomb algo defuser...
|
