Apr
6
Oh my! The definition of objectionable profanity has reached a new level with the banning of the word “Marcia” from Threadwatch.org which is the latest SEO gossip rag to hit the scene.
See?
http://www.marciahoo.com/images/banned.jpg
Isn’t it special to be afforded the same honour as the word FUCK in being construed as being objectionable vernacular? How special; I’m honored, indeed.
Tanky for the honour! But perhaps I should post the copy of the thread that I saved on disk that illustrates the whole precipitating incident, the last of a series of unfortunate and unseemly incidents, with the original posts intact - in fact, the last of the Christian-bashing threads posted, to be exact. Wouldn’t that be just as special?
Apr
6
Google’s Software Principles, the New Google Patent and Chicken Little
Filed Under Google | Leave a Comment
A minor uproar started in the SEO community with the announcement of the public publication of Google’s patent application
Information retrieval based on historical data
Chicken Little is indeed on the run, and for many it may seem like the sky is falling, either on themselves or on others. It may well be falling for some, but not for the most part in the way it’s being presented. Here are a couple of discussions on the patent application:
WebmasterWorld thread:
Google Patent Details Many Criteria Used For Ranking Purposes
Search Engine Watch Forums thread:
Does New Google Patent Validate Sandbox Theory?
And here’s where it goes from there, which more than a few are thinking about:
Crazy Idea - Bookmarks Seen by SE’s
Now how about let’s look at what Google has said publicly about software practices. From Google Corporate: Google Software Principles:
SNOOPING
If an application collects or transmits your personal information such as your address, you should know. We believe you should be asked explicitly for your permission in a manner that is obvious and clearly states what information will be collected or transmitted. For more detail, it should be easy to find a privacy policy that discloses how the information will be used and whether it will be shared with third parties.
Collecting and utilizing bookmarks without disclosure could fall into that category of application behavior, and what it boils down to is that either we trust Google to adhere to their publicly stated standards, or we don’t. Personally, I do - if only by reasoning that “do no evil” has far more long term value than utilizing sneaky, deceptive trickery and deception could ever possibly hope to accomplish.
There’s no shame or apology intended in admitting an unmitigated, undeniable bias toward Google, substantiated by at least but no less than one known black_hat accusation of being guilty of “Google spin.” But sometimes - in spite of it all, and in spite of the fact that I personally spent untold efforts for several years to protect their black hat asses from exposure in public posts - sometimes a reality check is in order, albeit some are pitifully void of truthful reality.
The folks at Google certainly are smart cookies and totally PR conscious (not PageRank), there’s no denying it. Somehow I think they didn’t all of a sudden go off the deep end and put their heads up their behinds.