Page 11 - Matt Cutts at PubCom

Im assuming it's this http://www.google.com/analytics/

hmmmmm...interesting.....i can see them using it to "spy" on SEO

This could be something they could use to add to the confusion but they don't even need to. If they make 2-3 algo changes each update, it makes it alot harder for SEO's to work out the changes.
You then start getting threads started on forums saying "my site dropped because of .....", a few people jump on the bandwagon, then people start believing it to be true.

thats all it is in the forums anyway..someone says something jumps on the wagon and we are off the the races....

something that's going to bite google in the *** though is that a lot of sites link to each other as natural links, but google is now going to see them as reciprocal links.

I'm in the forum business and I link to all my competitors, I checked it out.. it's going to happen for sure because people posting on the forum are saying check out what they said over here... [link to my competitor] and they all link back to me because of this as well... so are these natural links in the eyes of google... nope!

again google is so smart its stupid.

You think Google spent $35 million to buy a technology and will spend millions more to operate all the servers running that technology so they can "spy on SEOs"? You guys are paranoid (but that is true of most SEOs) and have an overblown sense of self importance.

First, all this talk about Google hating SEO's is crap. Google hates spam, not SEOs. Now, if you are an SEO that promotes spam, you have reason to treat Google as the enemy. But if you are simply trying toget your valuable content in front of the eyeballs that want to see it, you and Google are on the same team.

if Google decides to mine that data (which they claim they will never do) you think their goal will be to spy on SEOs? That is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. That data would be worth a FORTUNE for 800 uses, all more valuable than spying on SEOs.

Where are you getting this from? Who said Google is going to now see g recip link as unnatural? This is where paranoia gets generated. What Matt stated (that's where this thread started) was that sites who send out thousands of requests for link exchanges or that use link exchange programs to randomly exchange links with people have not earned those links. He said it is not that hard to spot and that Google will not teat those the same as earned links.

If your forum is worth a darn, it will not have a total of 2,000, with 1,980 of them being recips. Will it have some recips? Of course it will. Will that stick out as a site obviously participating in a link scam? NO!

Read what has been said. Think about it. Then post. Don't just jump on the "Google sucks" bandwagon because it's popular. A few of the people posting such complaints have actually done some testing and have some evidence driving their opinions. While I disagree with their conclusions, I have a great deal of respect for them and recognose that intelligent people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. But most of those complaining haven't got an emperical clue. Their sites don't rank well, they read a few posts about it being "evil, greedy Google's" fault and they jump on the bandwaggon. Sorry, but there is nothing to be gained from that.

Really nice thread ! Argee 100% with this argument.

If you think that google can't place a large devaluation on reciprocal links, read this blog entry by Jim Boykin.

http://www.jimboykin.com/what-a-links-page-should-not-look-like/

Already read but do not agree... all the directories are like these... G hate all directories ? Couldn`t be niche directories ?



This argument is very intersting... I want to see what Brandall think about it...

There are arguments here that could be true at the same time, or partially true, and we could learn a lot about positions that could look against each other, but both have a part of the true.

Really a great thread !

Where can I report this?

I agree there is no way they would invest that kind of money and resources to just spy on seo's - but as far as google being the enemy, it is hard not to think of them that way when they consistently make these "updates" at the beginning of holiday season each year. It is obvious this is an adwords revenue strategy - if it wasn't they would time these shakeups differently.

I understand how you feel about spam sites and agree that if they are using spam techniques, they got what they deserve and they do not belong in the top results or maybe not in the results at all.

However, it is not just spam sites that were badly affected and there are far too many of them to just be collateral damage.

Google has created this adversary atmosphere. They are greedy and this revenue strategy of theirs at holiday season is very blatant and arrogant.

Jackal,
You may be right. I don't work for Google, so I don't know their "intentions". Driving Adwords revenue certainly should be one of them though. It would be if I were CEO. But I do not think they will do so at the cost of relevant results. That would cost far more in the long run. And whatever you or I may think of Google Mgt., they are not stupid.

As for targeting Ecom sites, sorry but i just don't see it. I participate actively in a forum for store owners and I have about a dozen such online store owners as clients at any given time. I also run a successful online store. I can tell you that many store owners I know dropped from Jagger, but about as many moved up and more stayed basically uneffected (myself included).

During every update, those who got hurt yell the loudest. But for everyone who fell, someone rose, and my experience is not showing that it was just ecoms that fell and other that rose.

Another quality lisiting
www.dailyegyptian.com/debt_consolidation.html

i dont get it