Tue 3 Jul 2012
I was nursing Allie to sleep as part of her bedtime routine earlier when, while checking my emails on the phone, I came across an intriguing email from my blog benefactor and now taciturn friend, Mike (“wilco”). He hasn’t really blogged since he’s been married and now has two young kids to keep him busy, but he stated in this email that he’s annoyed enough about “this fedora thing” that he was going to rant about it in a post. So I clicked on the link, and read his post.
Let me get this straight. Someone who works for *making quote marks in the air with two fingers of each hand* the fedora store dot com has written Mike multiple emails requesting that he remove the link to their internet site that I had used in a post of mine from December, 2008? Mike is pretty offended by the request, and now annoyed by the tenacity of the emailer, *making quote marks* Sarah, so he came out of blogging retirement in *making quote marks* Sarah’s honor to do what bloggers do best — self-expression on a topic he now finds himself vehement over. As I read Mike’s post, paragraph after paragraph mentioning his research into the emailer, the parent company she works for, her requests, I had to keep from laughing at the fact that he made every mention of the company (and its subsidiaries)…you got it, a link. What’s the deal with wanting us to take the original link down? Turns out Mike had sent me an earlier email forwarding *making quote marks* Sarah’s requests. She says, in pertinent part:
We’ve been hit with a Google penalty for the links going to some of our sites. Basically that means that Google thinks some of our links are unnatural. We’re working with a consultant to try to correct this problem, and one of the things they would like us to do is to remove some of our links.
This actually makes no sense to me because there was nothing unnatural about my link in the original post. It wasn’t like I wrote, “Foxy mice jump over rice paddies FEDORA you will Latin showroom wise.” I’ve seen that in some “fake” content. Also, it wasn’t like I wrote anything negative about the store. It was just a post saying Mr. W and I went shopping, and I didn’t find a hat I could pull off, but he got this Fedora he loved for a great price. You’d think the store would appreciate my link. Mr. W thought maybe they’re writing a few polite email requests (and her emails WERE quite polite, not demanding, but simply requesting…repeatedly) so that if their requests aren’t heeded, they’ve set up their foundation for their next step, which is a lawsuit.
“On what ground?” I asked him. “There was no slander. I didn’t steal content or photos without giving them credit so there’s no copyright infringement. I simply linked their website to my mention of the Fedora you bought.” He shrugged. What would their damages be? I gave them too much referral traffic and they couldn’t keep up with demand, so they lost customers?
Truthfully, I’m not attached to that link, nor even the principle of it. It’s just that the situation is odd to me. A part of my nonchalance about the whole thing could be because Mike SO went to bat in my defense — or rather, the defense of my freedom of speech and the integrity of private party online content — that there’s no compulsion in me to fight. He’d already done it for me. And given that he’d petulantly created NINETEEN links to the requesting company, its personnel, its subsidiary companies, in his rant that they’ve taken offense to the ONE link I created 2.5 years ago, I’d have no problem removing MY one little link, which I doubt would even draw much traffic these days. (Until now, maybe, now that we’ve revived that post.)
Citing censorship, Mike doesn’t feel I should (have to) change my previous content, but given that he’s gotten them back on his own blog, I may decide to take my old link down, because (1) she asked nicely, and (2) Mike already more than made up for any effect the parent company, *making quote marks* One Click Ventures dot com, had hoped to achieve by the removal of my singular original link. I’ll think about it. Meanwhile, a part of me will take a little time to absorb the astounded discovery that apparently, I have caught the attention of a whole company who has taken special interest in something I wrote over 2 years ago, and also, that I hold in my hand the key to resolve Mike’s annoyances (cuz if I remove the link, maybe *making quote marks* Sarah will stop bothering him).
Interesting..heh heh. I read Mike’s post too. But what are these Google penalties? Without knowing more, it sounds like big brother Google wants to control the internets….
My sense of it is that Google doesn’t want a company to make a bunch of internet “fluff” just to generate fake popularity for itself, because popular sites appear earlier on Google searches. For example, when this blog was first created, you can search “cindy’s world” on Google all you like, it wouldn’t show up. But as time went by and more and more people linked to my blog or searched for it or visited it regularly, Cindy’s World started showing up on the first page when you did a Google search, along with other Cindy’s World stuff, like Cindy’s World of Quilts, other Cindys’ pages, etc. Last time I checked, I had become the first search result, beating out the commercial pages. I should look again now, just out of curiosity.
If that’s how Google searches are designed, sounds like it’s Google’s problem, not the people who run websites. I was curions about the basis for its “penalties” against fedora (gosh, I wish I knew how to create a link!!).
Very interesting post, and hysterical title 🙂
Happy 4th!!
I get Google’s logic. They figure the sites that more people click on must be what the general populace looks to find when they’re searching something. But it is NOT okay to make me change my original individual content cuz Google wants them to clean up their possible “fake” links. I did not create a fake link.
I tried to tell you the html code for making a link, but it made it into a link. =P So maybe I’ll have to tell you at work or something.
But…my point is too bad if it messes up a Google search. Google may *want* them to clean things up, but I’m missing the basis for Google to assess penalties against anyone, particularly based on 3rd party conduct (yours). Maybe the two have an advertising contract or some sort. Sarah would know :p
I didn’t think much about the Google end of this (having focused mostly on Sarah and her company’s requests to Mike), but I agree with you. If there is no pre-existing contract, then it does seem kinda “drunk with power” that Google gets to go fine people on the internet because they’re not doing what Google thinks is proper. Who made Google the internet police? On what authority do they have to make rules or enforce them? That’d be like you coming to me as a coworker and saying, “Hey, I overheard some clerks talking about what’s going on in your courtroom, and I don’t like that they were talking about it. So get them to stop, or you’ll owe me $50 as punishment.”
Now I’m kinda doubting what Sarah says is true (about Google penalizing her company). Even if it were true, I’m still pretty sure that Google didn’t mean content like mine when they’re talking about “unnatural”/fake link fluffs.
Exactly. But..i thought you were referring to yourself in the title “drunk with power” insofar as your years-old link might cost Sarah her job!!
it’s not so much that google specifically penalizes individuals on content as much as it is that they have some kind of algorithm that tries to determine relevancy.
it’s a fuzzy science on how google’s ranking algorithm works and all sarah was told by her consultant was that they should remove some links to their site.
google does use the URL of the post as one of the parameters to decide relevancy as well as things like looking at words, images, and links around the link to see if there is any correlation to the search term.
it *could* be that there’s a negative ranking score for fedora because the URL of the post contains the word cringe.
it *could* be that there’s a negative ranking score because the rest of the page doesn’t appear to be about fedoras.
who knows except for the folks at google?
and, sorry, i couldn’t help myself. =P
dang! wordpress flagged my last comment for moderation. must be because of the links. =P
Erin – I was referring to myself, originally. But now it also applies to Google in our comment string here.
wilco – well, then, I’m gonna have to go release it.