Google, SEW article, SEW moderator --all puzzling!

[urielw]

The world surely is a mystifying place.

I had a legal dispute years ago with ... a man I'll call John Doe. (***NOTE TO MODERATORS: NOT HIS REAL NAME.) I documented the dispute at the time on my website.

Then the other day I saw unexpected google results when searching on


John Doe site:mysite.com


I posted an inquiry at SEW: "Strange Google Result Omissions," http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=46727 .

A respondent there pointed to an article explaining google's "supplemental results." Unfortunately, the article raised more questions than it answered, and I posted a new inquiry in a new thread, "Google's 'supplemental results'" at http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=46722 .

Both my posts showed the google query I was talking about. That meant that John Doe's real name appeared as well as, I confess, my actual website's URL.

Now I've found that both threads have been edited by an SEW moderator to remove all mention of John Doe's name and even my website URL (which SEW users can see via my SEW profile anyway). The google search term that appears now in the first post is literally:


Person's Name site:example.com


The reason given for the moderator's edits: "Edited to remove specifics of the dispute."

Note that the only specifics given were the man's name and my website -- specifics that it seemed eminently reasonable to mention.

I came to SEW because I was befuddled by google. Now I'm no less baffled about google, but I'm also flummoxed by a SEW article and by SEW's moderator actions.

I did make an effort to find a rationale for those <snip>'s, checking the Member Code of Conduct and the FAQ section titled Self-Promotion & Gratuitous Link Dropping. In the latter I read that "we will actively remove links that we determine are intended primarily for the purpose of self-promotion." But if anyone "determined" such a thing in this case, it's fairly obvious they were mistaken.

[Jill Whalen]

I'm not a moderator here, but I believe the edits would probably be similar to SEW's stance on not "outing" spam sites.

Yours isn't a spam situation, but it sounds a bit like "outing" behavior. Many forums are happy for people to post the generalities of a situation, but would prefer to not mention names or sites. Yours may have slipped by the moderators the first time around.

[Elisabeth]

urielw,

Please don't think I'm being cute, but I've removed the specific name of the moderator you are pointing out here, it's just not necessary.

In any case, I've reviewed the situation, and Jill is essentially correct - while its not necessarily a 'spam outing' or situation, it is akin to that reasoning and really, the issue could likely be raised without mentioning specifics.

the fact that the issue is surrounding a legal dispute, which can be a sticky area of liabilty, although our TOS generally removes us from any, we should have a clause of its own in our FAQ/Member Code of Conduct that explains we may remove specifics regarding legal disputes at our discretion. I'll get that in there in some form or another in the near future.

Apologies for the confusion, but it is always best to take up any specific moderating problems with me or danny sullivan via PM.

Elisabeth

[urielw]

I've removed the specific name of the moderator you are pointing out here


I love this place!


the issue could likely be raised without mentioning specifics.


I was inquiring about search query results. I specified the search query.


the issue is surrounding a legal dispute, which can be a sticky area of liabilty ... we may remove specifics regarding legal disputes at our discretion.


Folks ... I don't want to "flame" anyone -- I'm really not given to such behavior. But anyone who thinks the mere mention of a name or a website in a tech inquiry like this could involve SEW in liability is seriously deluded. What kind of America do you think you're living in?


it is always best to take up any specific moderating problems with me or danny sullivan via PM.


And while delusion can be embarrassing, it's still best -- if you care about correcting delusions -- to permit open discussion.

And if that's too hot for SEW to handle I suppose I'm ready to say goodbye.

[Jill Whalen]

cya :cool:

[mcanerin]

I'm confused.

I haven't been involved in this, so I went to look at the original post in question.

You say:

I was inquiring about search query results. I specified the search query. and later,
tech inquiry like this
Yet a look at the post shows (in paragraph order):

1. A statement that you have a legal dispute with someone specific and that it's documented on your website. Completely unnecessary to the technical matter at hand. It could be about anything.

2. An outline of a search naming the person and your site, along with a complaint that the result is not what you expect. Although this could be helpful at first, it's not necessary once the matter has been addressed.

3. A question about whether the reason is that the search returns a sponsored link by the person named is somehow distorting the results you expect. Followed by claims that the persons website also contains distorted facts about the legal issue you are claiming this post isn't about. These claims are completely unnecessary. The contents of the other site are not a technical issue and even you never claimed you thought they were.

4. A statement that the other major search engines show more results than Google with the same search. No problem - good info, actually.

5. A statement that all the engines show the main page outlining your dispute (followed by a direct link to that page). Followed by a statement that YOUR site has "relatively simple and clear information overview of the matter". The matter being once again the legal issue that you are claiming the post isn't about. The link is not necessary, since it would be obvious what the main page is by looking at the results. The statements about the content of the page being "simple and clear" are related only to your legal dispute and not to the technical issue.

I've seen lots of posts like this. So have the other moderators. They almost always start off with a plaintive "I'm confused" style statement, followed by a "is this spam" or "is this legal" or "is this a good result" type of statement, followed by the name and specifics of the competitor or opponent in question, followed by links either to the competitor or the posters website, depending on the wording of the "question", which is usually less of a "dad, why is the sky blue?" and more of a "dad, why does billy get two cookies and I only get one?" type of a question.

We prefer to focus on the more "why is the sky blue" technical issues on this forum.

This post, had it been truly a technical question, could have been stated easily without going into specifics. It absolutely did not require information on the fact that is was regarding a legal dispute, followed by unsupported claims about the other parties claims on their website, followed by an implication that your site is the one that is "simple and clear ", which was totally unnecessary. What would it matter if it was difficult to understand, or even in a different language? What does that have to do about the technical issue?

This isn't a legal dispute forum. We do not claim to be qualified to judge your dispute. We don't even claim to care.

Further, assuming that you do not have the skill necessary to outline the question in a technical, rather than personal manner (which, to be fair, could be the case), once the question was answered, what does it matter what the original specifics are?

This really confuses me. Why is this an issue after the fact? Your question was answered and the only remaining "value" are the legal claims and the free link to your own site.

That's why technical issues, which tend to be short term (since hopefully by posting them they get fixed or addressed!) are not a place for what are essentially long term personal or legal claims including a direct link to the posters site.

I wasn't there at the time, but if I *had* been the first moderator on the scene, I would have determined the same thing. I'm not saying this to support another mod (I disagree with them all the time), but because it's the truth.

Ian

[projectphp]

What kind of America do you think you're living in?
A highly litigious one perhaps ;)

If you want to "name names", do it on your own site. Leave forums out of it!!!

[urielw]

My goodness, my goodness, my goodness. How do I get myself mired in these things?

The paranoia I'm seeing here (may I say that?) is truly laughable. Surely well in excess of even the Internet's norms. I doubt any conspiracy theory would be beyond you.

Out of perverse curiosity I compared the wordcounts of my original post with your characterization of it. I know, I know, it doesn't prove anything. But just for fun. Mine is 147 words; yours (just your points 1 to 5) stands at 269. Nearly double.

I suppose now I have to respond to your points to defend my honor at SEW. OK:


A statement that you have a legal dispute with someone specific and that it's documented on your website. Completely unnecessary to the technical matter at hand.


No no no. The fact that the webpages concerned have derogatory information about the person is totally RELEVANT, and my best guess at present as to the explanation.


Although [An outline of a search naming the person and your site] could be helpful at first, it's not necessary once the matter has been addressed.


Does every SEW reader in the universe read posts at the same instant? Has it occurred to you that different readers can have different insights? (And is this point not obvious enough not to have to be stated?)


claims that the persons website also contains distorted facts about the legal issue ... are completely unnecessary. The contents of the other site are not a technical issue and even you never claimed you thought they were.


I did offer *one sentence* mentioning that the other guy's site contains false info. Look. My pages, which google's results omit, tell the TRUE story (and include complete court transcripts). The other guy's site (which google shows as a Sponsored Link) contains a FALSE account of the same affair.

I'm obviously not demanding or expecting anyone to take that on faith. But my statement is undeniably plausible. And again it's totally relevant in seeking explanations. Suspend disbelief for a sec. John Doe has a sponsored link to a site full of lies. Ergo, he's got some money, he's motivated, and he's maybe not totally scrupulous. Could he somehow have manipulated google's results to suppress my true account?


The statements about the content of the page being "simple and clear" are related only to your legal dispute and not to the technical issue.


No no no. My neck is getting sore from shaking my head so much. Good grief. It's totally relevant (again) since I'm pointing out that google's results are inappropriate. It's not just that they show only 1 of my 9 pages. It's also that the only one they do show is a long trial transcript that virtually no one would read, whereas another of the 9 is a clear and simple overview of the matter that would be far more relevant to the typical searcher.


This really confuses me. Why is this an issue after the fact? Your question was answered and the only remaining "value" are the legal claims and the free link to your own site.


And that really confuses me. Did you read my answer to the answer? The answer does not explain anything!

There seems to be a cognition problem here. "Your question was answered" -- therefore it's solved. A site is named -- therefore there's an underhanded self-promotion gimmick.

You gotta *read*; and *think* a bit.

[Jill Whalen]

Out of perverse curiosity I compared the wordcounts of my original post with your characterization of it. I know, I know, it doesn't prove anything. But just for fun. Mine is 147 words; yours (just your points 1 to 5) stands at 269. Nearly double.

Well that's just really not fair. Everyone knows Ian can't write anything that is less than 500 words! ;)

[mcanerin]

The paranoia I'm seeing here (may I say that?) is truly laughable. Surely well in excess of even the Internet's norms. I doubt any conspiracy theory would be beyond you.

If your theory about why your pages lost their rankings is because someone else bid on their OWN name and therefore Google removed your negative comments about this person as a result of him paying them, then I suggest that the "paranoid" person with the "conspiracy theory" would be yourself.

Google keeps the paid and organic listings separate. If they removed negative sites due to someone buying adwords, then newspapers and blogs worldwide would be quickly shut down as a result of someone in the news being presented negatively and therefore buying an ad.

Buying adwords is not a useful tactic to get competitors and opponents shut down.

If it worked that way, then a search for the "Church of Scientology" (which they bid on legitimately as it's their own name) would not result in the negative sites that result, all of which appear to have no issues getting their pages listed, inspite of very negative opinions and, yes, descriptions of legal issues.

To return to your own argument:

But anyone who thinks the mere mention of a name or a website in a tech inquiry like this could involve SEW in liability is seriously deluded. What kind of America do you think you're living in?

Anyone who thinks that the mere mention of a name in a website in context of a lawsuit could get it delisted is seriously deluded. What kind of America do you think you're living in?

Ian

[urielw]

I suggest that the "paranoid" person with the "conspiracy theory" would be yourself.


Crucial diff: I was offering a hypothesis. You were presenting a conviction.

And obviously I wasn't suggesting any theory as stupid as google automatically delisting my pages just because the other guy bought an ad.

What if he talked to google? Schmoozed with them? Threatened to boycott them? Threatened to kill Sergey Brin?

Hey. Those last 2 were jokes.


If they removed negative sites due to someone buying adwords, then newspapers and blogs worldwide would be quickly shut down as a result of someone in the news being presented negatively and therefore buying an ad.


Again, I'm seeing a cogitation problem. Don't be so fantastically simplistic. Is there some law requiring google to treat nytimes.com the identical way they treat my (unmentionable) site?

Things can be tweaked, Ian.

And that attempt at the end of your latest to turn my argument on itself.... I don't think it works very well.

[mcanerin]

I had expected that you would have checked this already, and since I do this for a living I don't normally offer free direct consulting in this manner, but I'll make an exception this once. You're welcome.

I just checked the main pages in question, the ones that you are complaining about having been removed were apparently removed by YOU.

Let me explain.

A page cannot exist in a vaccum as far as a search engine is concerned. It needs at least one incoming link. Without at least one link, the page is considered an "orphan".

What happens then is that the page gets moved to the supplemental index for a while (kind of "on hold"), and if there are still no links to it detected after a while, it finally gets dropped.

Go to your homepage. Surfing only with a mouse, find the missing pages in question. You can't. I tried.

In the process of updating your website to show the latest information, you have neglected to provide some sort of link to the older pages you have. They are now orphans and are being slowly removed from the index, under the assumption that if you can't be bothered to link to them, then why should a search engine?

The reason that the other engines haven't dropped the pages yet is that they are slower to update (Google is the fastest, currently). But they will, unless you fix your linking structure.

My suggestion: stop blaming others and work on your own site. You are truly tha master of your own (www) domain. Not Google. Not people you are commenting on. Not the AdWords team. You.

At least, that's my current paranoid conspiracy theory. You are welcome to your own, of course.

Ian

[urielw]

that's my current paranoid conspiracy theory.


And it's not a bad one at all.

However:

(And I could have elaborated all these circumstantial aspects of my personal situation in my original post -- but imagine how you would have protested then!)

Perhaps I should have mentioned it at the outset -- You're right that the pages in question at my site (the 9 pages about John Doe) are "orphan" pages in that there's no link to any of them from my homepage. And I'll explain that.

You don't mention however that the one page of those 9 which google's results DO include has a link to the "main" page (among the 9) that gives the simple overview of the matter. So I can't totally buy your:


A page cannot exist in a vaccum as far as a search engine is concerned. It needs at least one incoming link. Without at least one link, the page is considered an "orphan".


Google includes the low-relevance page and excludes the high-relevance page, even though the included page links to the high-relevance page.

Still, I admit the orphan factor has some significance. Sorry for not mentioning it earlier. Honestly, I was refraining from spilling my guts too much (though as we've seen I didn't refrain enough to satisfy you).

Now, why the orphanhood? The obvious reason. I was a consultant. The story is about a legal dispute with a former client. Featuring it on my homepage wouldn't be a surefire way to turn new prospects on, would it?

At this point in my career however ... well in fact my homepage still includes "consultant" among my roles. But that's really a kind of an abstract theory at this stage. (See my very amusing stories about Corporate America at .... oh, I forgot.)

Anyway -- at this stage I have no prob killing the orphanhood issue and linking from my homepage. I just noticed this whole issue a few days ago and wanted to inquire about it before making any changes.

[urielw]

The reason that the other engines haven't dropped the pages yet is that they are slower to update (Google is the fastest, currently). But they will, unless you fix your linking structure.


I should add: My homepage has *never* linked to the pages in question.

[mcanerin]

We are getting off the "Forum Policies and Operations" topic, but to clarify, you need one of two things:

1. A link accessible from the home page. Not necesarily FROM the home page. It could be from a site map or an inner page. But that page should be accessible from the home page, or at least be accessible from a page that is in turn.

2. Now that I've said that, I'll qualify it.:) You technically don't need a link from any other page in your site at all (though in practice, this is the easiest and most appropriate, thus my previous comment). You need some sort of link to the page. You could have, for example, a link to one of those orphans from an outside website directly, and then it would be indexed, along with any other pages it in turn was linked to.

A search spider works this way. It starts somewhere. Typically for Google is starts in the Google Directory, but it doesn't have to. It then chooses one link at random.

Once it gets to the resulting page, it chooses another one link at random, and so on. If you have enough spiders, you will find in practice that using this method will index pretty much everything on the web sooner or later.

But if a page has no links going to it, then the spider will never land on a page where it can jump to it. Therefore the spider will never visit it. In this case, the spider has no way of knowing the difference between the page being deleted (and therefore not a proper subject for display as a result) and simply orphaned.

What does NOT happen is that Google does not go through it's index and revisit all it's links, in essence querying itself. In short, it doesn't check it's own links in it's database, it just goes out and looks for links naturally, refreshing them if they are already in the index, adding them if they are not, and removing them if they haven't been found again after a certain period of time.

The one time Google will go directly to a page and index it without jumping randomly is when a page is directly submitted via the Submit URL function of the Google website. There is some discussion as to whether or not this even works. If it does, what is clear is that what appears to happen is that Google will index the page on the assumption that if you are submitting it here, eventually it will also find other links to it and be able to refresh it's database. If it doesn't find them after a certain period of time (totally up to Google, of course, but usually 3 months or so) then it removes the page.

This is all based on the assumption that if no one is linking to a page, it can't be important.

You mention:

You don't mention however that the one page of those 9 which google's results DO include has a link to the "main" page (among the 9) that gives the simple overview of the matter.

And how would Google know that? It doesn't matter what page the orphan links TO (which is in this case your home page, which I will point out IS indexed) but rather its pages that the orphan is linked FROM.

As a real world example, it's like I'm trying to find out who the best chef in town is, and I ask a bunch of people. If those people all say that Chef Bob is the best, then I can proceed with a fair amount of confidence that Chef Bob might be someone worth talking to. Maybe he will point out Chef Doug. Since a lot of people thing Chef Bob is great, then I will be more likey to beleive that Chef Doug is at least as great, since Chef Bob is already regarded as an expert. Simple word of mouth, social networking stuff. With me so far?

Googles link analysis is based on this concept. It assumes that if lots of people think you are good, then lots of people will link to you. It also assumes that if lots of people think you are great, then you should be qualified to provide references in turn. There are issues with this theory, but it's the one being used right now.

This is why SEO's are sensitive to links. They are one of the main commodities of our industry. When someone posts a link in a forum such this one, Google reads that as a positive vote of confidence by the owners of the forum for the site linked to. This might be inaccurate, but is how it works nonetheless.

Naturally, Mods are sensitive to people voting for themselves and using the Forums reputation as a platform to do so. Perhaps now you understand the "ichy trigger finger". We see attempts to do this a LOT. Our members understand the value of links, which in the case of one of my clients is worth tens of thousands of dollars PER DAY. It's not chump change.

Let's get back to the example. What about Chef Joe? He thinks Chef Doug is pretty good, too. Does it matter? No. Because so far no one has mention chef Joe at all. You don't even know he exists. Therefore his vote of confidence in Chef Doug is totally meaningless to everyone but himself.

This is what has happened to your orphaned pages. From a search engine standpoint looking at links, no one (not even you!) think they are important or worthy of mention. Worse, it can't even find them anymore. As far as it knows, you have deleted them or don't want them indexed for some reason. Therefore it is in the process of removing them from the index.

It really doesn't matter who those pages link TO. Like Chef Joe, no one cares and no one even knows he's there to offer an opinion in the first place.

If you don't want the pages to disappear fromthe Google index, link TO them, or have someone else link TO them.

Since this is no longer (IMO) a Mod issue, I will direct you to our Link Building Forum (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44) where they have lots of ideas on how to do this properly.

Good luck,

Ian

[projectphp]

Honestly, I was refraining from spilling my guts too much (though as we've seen I didn't refrain enough to satisfy you).
It never ceases to amaze me the rudeness of people.

Forums exist under a social contract in which we, as posters, need to get something back for posting. What is recieved is part learings, and part "warm fuzzy" feeling. If posters aren't learning something froma thread, then they need to feel, at the very least, appreciated to give a stuff and want to continue to provide FREE help.

And lets get real, SEM has a huge ammount of freely available information compared to other industries (try going to a forum to get legal advice), and if the price of that is a bit of niceness and appreciation, and a willingness to obey the rules and do the right thing, is that really too high a price to pay (for, again, FREE advice??)

IMHO, when people make pointed comments it is not only annoying but breaks this social contract and you, urielw, have broken this contract.

You first made disparaging comments about this place and its moderators, and then, when a moderator goes out of his way to help you, do you thank him? Do you appologise for previous comments? No, you continue to be rude and make out like the people here are precious because you "... didn't refrain enough to satisfy.." the moderators.

I think Ian has been more than helpful to you, as I would have (and virtually everyone else did) ignore you. Yet, as you point out quite nastily, Ian has written several virtual essays. He has solved your problem (which you still don't seem to want to acknowledge) and you have not once made any comment of thanx, or even gratitude.

IMHO, you owe Ian, for his free consultation, at the very least a thank you, and preferably one followed by an "and I am sorry for the tone of my posts, but please understand my frustration".

Anything less is not enough to fulfill your part of the social contract.

My $0.02.