Google has now decided that Web sites are no longer permitted to exchange links, a practice that predates Google and search engines in general (linking is what makes the Web the Web).
Both Threadwatcher and Fantomaster have expressed some outrage at this latest attempt by Google to dictate to Webmasters what they can and cannot do.
As Matt Cutts himself has acknowledged, Webmasters are free to do whatever they please with their Web sites and Google is free to do whatever it wishes with its index (a point I have made many times through the years). But if you’re a small Webmaster what can you do about this latest threat to your freedom to promote yourself on the Web?
Actually, there several appropriate actions you can take to protest Google’s unmitigated bullying. After all, most Web content is now in Google’s hidden Supplemental Results Index anyway — it’s not like the links you exchange with other sites are very likely to pass value in Google’s index, but Google isn’t the only search engine out there.
So continue exchanging links with your friends, relatives, and business partners (I am not endorsing managed reciprocal link services). It isn’t Google’s place to decide to whom you may or may not link, and if your pages are in the Supplemental Results Index you’re not likely to get nearly as much traffic from Google as you are to get traffic from other Web sites. Until Google starts treating all Web sites equally again, the link manipulation schemes that spammers and scammers engage in are Google’s problem, not yours. Let Google fix the problem (which they can do quickly and easily, by preventing ALL sites from passing link anchor text).
Furthermore, you can start adding “rel=’nofollow’” to all links you create that point to Google and Google properties. While that won’t remove Google’s content from its own index, it will at least ensure that you don’t hand any of your precious internal PageRank over to Google.
Thirdly, you can click on that link to Google’s new Webmaster guidelines and choose “No” down at the bottom of the page where they ask if the information was helpful.
You can also replace all your Google site search code with site search tools from Yahoo!, Ask, and/or Live Search. It’s not like your Supplemental Results pages are going to show up on many site-specific searches anyway if you have a large content site. At least the other services give all unique content pages a fair chance to appear in search results.
Fourth, you politely protest Google’s threats and bullying on blogs, in forums, and in their own blog comment sections (when they open up their posts to comments). Don’t be overly abusive but let them know you’re angry about their open policy of Web Apartheid. Speak to Googlers at conferences and let them know that you as a Web master don’t appreciate or support Google’s Web Apartheid.
Brand Google for the expression Web Apartheid — not by link bombing them but by using the expression only when you speak about Google in your blog posts, your forum posts, in your articles, etc.. Let this be the beginning of Google’s black mark for imposing an unfair segregation policy on millions of innocent Web sites.
Tell visitors to your Web sites that you disagree with Google’s Web Apartheid policy. Tell your visitors that Google deliberately and willfully prevents millions of unique content Web sites from appearing in search results solely because those sites don’t have links from the right Web sites.
Remind your visitors that there are other search engines out there that treat the Web fairly and don’t try to force people to look only at Google-approved content.
You don’t have to have a lot of influence to change the way Google treats you. Your search engine optimization strategy should not be so reliant upon Google that you are afraid to do anything Google might object to. Google has already begun to lose search engine market share.
Take back the Web. Show Google that they aren’t in a position to be dictating Web morality for the rest of us. Forbidding sites from engaging in a practice that is as old as the Web is just morally objectionable. Google needs to fix its bad index management problems internally, not by pushing other people around.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are solely my own views and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, associates, or other parties.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Adam Lasnik 08.08.07 at 1:59 am
Forgive my bluntness here, but I’ll offer some contrasting ideas.
1) You can Just Say No to misleading and link-bait-style headlines.
2) You can speak out when bloggers use words like “segretation” and “apartheid” (one of your current favorites) and “holocaust” / “Nazis” (which I’ve also seen) to refer to Web policies, cheapening the terms which more responsibly refer to the brutal repression and/or torture of people (not search rankings).
3) You can call out bloggers when they persistently exaggerate at levels which call into question their biases, dedication to accuracy, and truthfulness. For instance: “After all, most Web content is now in Google’s hidden Supplemental Results Index anyway.” Blogger, meet boy who cried wolf.
* * *
Like other Googlers, I welcome and encourage feedback… heartfelt, blunt, and thoughtful feedback. But angry clicks, petulant no-follows, and, quite frankly, unbecoming temper tantrums do nothing to help Google help webmasters… or help webmasters help themselves.
* * *
Michael, I’ve sat back while you’ve posted misleading and inflammatory comments, but I felt compelled to speak out at this point. Our supplemental index was created to offer greater inclusion of web pages — pages we wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to crawl, index, and serve — and we continue to increase the percentage of queries showing supplemental results.
With regards to reciprocal linking, you also choose to ignore the rather clear statement prefacing the list (emphasis mine):
I’m sorry you question the motives of our Webmaster Central and Search Quality teams. But I urge you to at least get your facts right… and include appropriate context before urging boycotts.
Michael Martinez 08.08.07 at 5:25 am
Adam, when Google starts playing fair with all the unique, unspammed Web content that is trapped in the Supplemental Results Index with little to no chance for drawing traffic from Google’s queries, when Wikipedia resumes a statistically valid position in Google’s search results, when Google stops threatening and bullying people in order to “fight spam”, you’ll be in a better position to object to my objections to Google’s growing mistrust and mistreatment of millions of innocent Web pages.
Your complaints against me are completely without merit (and quite false with respect to saying that I am being misleading). The many people who have found their Web sites lost in the Supplemental Results Index have been pleading with Google to relent for more than a year.
I don’t question Google’s motives. Just the irresponsible tactics your employer uses to drag Webmasters into the effort to manage Google’s index.
Let me know when Google decides to really fight Web spam by stripping ALL sites of the ability to pass anchor text. That is the worst possible measure of relevance anyone could have come up with.
Nitin 09.18.07 at 3:52 pm
Nothing much to say except that Google is now becoming corporate and they are on same lines as once was Apple or Microsoft, where they defined public need instead of understanding the public need. Not to mention that no one went has gone far with it and Google become just another company which more MBA’s want to join so that they can exercise their hegemony.
Btw I already have a yahoo toolbar in my browser ,which is obviously Opera – Cut out the hype and check the reality, FF sucks – that is why it needs Google to promote it, and so is google Search becoming irrelevant day by day. As I say this I have already made four entries into google first page in last one month because what google is encouraging is article spamming. So fill your pages high density of keywords, keyword spamming is good as long as you keep the percentage right and get a few articles to point at it.
And google has failed to mention as to what about those sites which already have acquired high pr based on those link exchanges that google is now frowning at. This statement from google should be read as a statement to mark the doors closed for new websites to acquire high pr. If they really wanted to give away all those web exchanges they should first get rid of PR or atleast stop paying weightage to it. Even a third grade article gets to top position if the home page has a high relevant PR, while your best of article may not be able to do that if you don’t have a good PR. Not to talk of supplementary pages, they are a night mare.
I think all google is trying to do is to BOOST ITS ADWORDS SALE. They are closing in the doors for legitimate SEO processes or search engine promotions to leave adwords as the only option for new websites. Please note that articles that point to your site normally come along with adwords, double benefit for Google. It is simple as that and if google can read this then Google should understand that its equally easy for other people to see these kind of cheap marketing tactics being employed b you. Its only a matter of time before people will start pushing their websites onto other search engines and they will start showing better results.
I know management companies and boards like Google has now will still bet on the time it will take but then that is the reason why all tech companies start seeing a decline after ten years or so. Check out for apple, microsoft, yahoo or any company out there. The moment you start dictating your users, its time for others to understand that your journey downhill has begin.
davoud 12.06.07 at 1:53 am
Michael:
I do have to disagree with your point of veiw in regards to link exchange. As Adam points out on his post :
“… However, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. This is in violation of Google’s webmaster guidelines and can negatively impact your site’s ranking in search results. ”
What I get from this is that if you build link exchange “ONLY” for the sake of getting a good page rank without thinking about the quality and relevance of the content to which you are linknig or getting back link then you will be banned, which I compeletely agree with it.
However if you have link echange page and do consider the quality and relevance of the content to which you are linking or getting a back link then you should not worry about it.
Adam, please correct me if my findings are incorrect.
As an example, I have a palce for link exchange in my portfolio located at
cssfreelancer.awardspace.com
Even though I am not yet linking to anybody in this area but google did not ban me because of the link exchange area that I have specified for link exchange purposes.
However in terms of fighting with web spam, I agree with you and I am sure that google’s policy needs to be revised because they do not necessarily fight with spam efficiently even though my previous site was subject to spam and they did an excellent job fighting with it.
As an example again my portfolio located at the above URL is currently subject to spam by a spammer who created a duplicate of my site and as a result google banned my site in the above URL on Dec 3,07.
This is just obsurd how a quality guideline can open the door for spammers to attack legitimate web sites and use google as a tool for their purposes just because they do not want a web site to exist for whatever reason.
I did report it to google and they did reply to me in a reasonable period of time to fill out the DMCA (DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT) form and fax it to them in order to remove the spammer URLs from search results.
I did reply back to them asking for removing the ban from my site while i do take the appropriate action however they did reply to me and stated they cannot be of any help in this regard!! and that I need to consult the webmaster guildeline and help section of google for more info and that I need to post a message in google groups to get help.
Actually I had psoted a message before they ask me to , however so far no body from google has answered my question.
You might be interested in my thread which the URL is:
http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/b9493f08024daaac#c7ee793c4a1baaed
Michael Martinez 12.06.07 at 9:22 am
davoud: “I do have to disagree with your point of veiw in regards to link exchange….”
Michael: I am a long-time advocate for allowing Web sites to link freely to each other for whatever reasons they please.
Google is simply out of line and being totally unethical in its promotion of its standards. Wish I had more time to reply but I have to go.
You must log in to post a comment.