I have a love/hate relationship with Google.
The tools that Google creates are absolutely top notch. They are useful, well designed, user friendly and they are free. What more can you ask for?
Plus many tools, like Google Analytics, are pretty much the industry standard. So you’re more or less stuck with them. Might as well love them :).
But I also hate Google…because they can’t really be trusted. And that’s a shame because so many people rely on Google to drive their business.
By the way, relying on Google (or any single source) for driving your business is not a great idea. If you are having trouble coming up with an effective, well-rounded marketing plan, feel free to¬†contact me so we can discuss your unique situation.¬†
It seems that every time Google changes its algorithm, they come out with a statement saying that only a fraction of a percent of all websites will be affected. When in reality, it seems that the percentages are¬†much¬†higher.
Of course, I can’t really prove this. And it may just be a matter of affected people being more outspoken than those who weren’t. But here’s an example that I can substantiate….
The “Penguin Update” was an algorithm change to improve search engine rankings by eliminating “spammy” websites.
Essentially, what the algorithm change did was punish websites that were practicing questionable SEO by just accumulating large amount of backlinks. So if you had a lot of “spammy” backlinks pointing at your website, Google didn’t look too favorably at you any more.
Unless you’re a major corporation, of course…then all is forgiven.
Of course, Google didn’t say this was a “punishment.” Rather, it was simply an algorithm change. But let’s set¬†semantics¬†aside…it was a¬†punishment for bad SEO practices.
And that’s fair enough. But…
This raised some concerns about the possibility of “negative SEO.” In other words, if bad backlinking was now “punishable,” why couldn’t you just bombard¬†your¬†competitors with bad backlinks and sabotage their search rankings?
Google denied this was a possibility.
But were they telling the whole truth?
Apparently not, because they recently released the “link disavow tool” to help you communicate to Google which links pointing to your site you don’t want taken into account.
Why would they need to release this tool if “negative SEO” wasn’t really a possibility? Hmm…
But that’s still conjecture.
So here’s an infographic Tasty Placement providing experimental evidence that Google was just a tad bit…shall we say…dishonest :).
¬†So what do you think about Google’s updates? Are they effective? Does Google lie about what it says?
[Infographic] Negative SEO and Why Google Should Never Be Trusted by Eugene Farber