Article re: Google Ethics Committee

[bethabernathy]

Hi There: I read the article "10 Things The Google Ethics Committee Could Discuss" at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3732475.stm

I was wondering, does anyone have factual information as to what Google was doing when the Florida wipe out occurred? -Beth

[seobook]

Hi There: I read the article "10 Things The Google Ethics Committee Could Discuss" at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3732475.stm

I was wondering, does anyone have factual information as to what Google was doing when the Florida wipe out occurred? -Beth

most of us analyze results and then give our opinion (sometimes its more but often that is all it is). if you use their search personalization feature of today you will notice some similar effects of what happened then, though few know exactly what they and how much they did it.

[bethabernathy]

When the Florida occurred all that was left in the top rankings were portal type sites or .org's. This is back to my theory that the sites with more pages were listed first... but everyone keeps telling me that is not the case. I had also read that it was a pre-holiday move to boost adword sales and create a high end of the year profit for the IPO. Perhaps it was just a big programming bug/glitch in their database.

[Marcia]

>>pre-holiday move to boost adword sales

FWIW, I personally never have believed that for even one single minute. It's much more likely it was an algo change with some of the knobs turned a bit too far one way that they seem to have corrected later on. That was also the time that they quietly added onto their site that they were using stemming, whereas previously they had stated that they didn't.

One of the things that some of us noticed was a low cap on tolerance for more than a certain (un-named) number of specific keyword phrase occurrences on individual pages, which is not the same thing as keyword density though it will affect the numbers.

And as far as big sites are concerned, the expression that comes to mind is "corpus of documents" which when combined with a bit of semantic analysis and linguistic diversity with a touch of Hilltop precepts thrown in means that those with smaller sites have to look seriously toward the quality of their interconnectivity with other sites, both with inbound and outbound links. Focusing on just what's within the confines of the walls of our own sites may just not be enough any longer.

In spite of the tin foil hats and all the whining, ranting and cries of foul play and injustice we've seen, the fact remains that when there's a major algo change there's bound to be a degree of disorientation because quite simply, the things that used to work may just not be working any more. In fact, I believe that's just about how it was offered as an explanation, which is a comfort. There's a big difference between just not having what it takes to rank and being penalized or filtered.

The most ethical thing Google can do is to continue to refine their algorithm in an effort to maintain the integrity and quality of their search for users, and there's no evidence that they've ever done anything other than just that.