Google Penalized Mozilla

{lang: 'ar'}

I think most of you know Google and Mozilla are good friend.   Recently there are some reports mention Google has penalized Mozilla because of its User Generated Comments (UGC).   Matt Cutts now explain the penalty is page specific, since the page got millions of spam comments there.  Mozilla shouldn’t allow auto accept comments at the first place, while it’s understandable that Google applies a page specific penalty instead of a sitewide penalty.

So, should we create an account there and spam our competitors, by assuming the penalized page will bring negative impacts to the pointed pages/sites?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

To Disavow, or not to Disavow?

{lang: 'ar'}

Since Google has launched the disavow tool for removing unwanted links, there have been some debates on whether every site should establish and submit a disavow request, especially you received the unnatural link notice in Google Webmaster Tools.

Some webmaster argued that you should do it even you receive no warning from Google, simply because the negative SEO is effective and then by establishing a disavow file you could show Google you are in control of your links.    To me,  you should do it if you were engaging with web spam techniques and got penalized by Google, whether it’s a manual action or the action trigger the spam filters.

It’s a smart move from Google.   Imagine the first Penguin update hits hundreds and thousands of sites, and as a result, the spammers were scared away from the black hat techniques and keep their hands clean now.  Google launched the disavow tool to encourage webmaster confess in front of the Google spam team.  From now, Google will get more information about the spam related issues without much effort.

Good job, Google.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Another storm is coming? Google Penguin update 2.0

{lang: 'ar'}
cute penguin couple - explored

cute penguin couple – explored (Photo credit: Adam Foster | Codefor)

I have been reading some rumors saying about another flux is coming.   Matt Cutts said in the SES San Francisco that Google engineers are working hard on the next Penguin update.  I can feel that because the last update was happened 2 months ago and everyone, especially the ones that have been fixing their sites, were expecting a monthly update and see how their fix ‘compliant’ with the algorithm.     Matt also mentioned the next update will be big.  It sounds tough.

Google sent a batch of unnatural warning message a couple of works ago and they encouraged webmaster fixing their errors, by removing the inorganic links and also let them know if the bad links can’t be removed.  Hence I expect there were quite many webmasters freaked out and confessed their link building activites in front of the Google God, thus it means G has a much better understanding on who are the spammers, and which sites are selling links.  Probably G is working on that and incorporating these information to the next update.

Fasten your seatbelt, and wait for the next update.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

3 straight Panda data refreshes

{lang: 'ar'}

Google announced a data refresh earlier today.   3 straight data refreshes, probably they are satisfied with the algo.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Unnatural inbound links notice – check GWT now!

{lang: 'ar'}
Crying..

Crying.. (Photo credit: Anders Ljungberg)

Attention: Please check your Google Webmaster Tool now!

Last Friday, Google has sent out a new batch of unnatural link warning to webmasters via the Google Webmaster Tool console.   For those who received the message had  no idea what’s going on, especially the ones that never participate in black hat link building, or buying and selling links.    Matt Cutts said the message last Friday means:

It’s possible for this to indicate potential spammy activity by the site, it can also have innocent reason.

The innocent site will get the message as we move towards more transparency, but it’s not necessarily something that you automatically need to worry about.

It’s terrible, because Matt Cutts stated clearly in SMX that webmasters shouldn’t ignore the message.

Days after sending the message, Matt took another step by changing the content of the warning message:

First off, we changed the messages themselves that we’ll send out to make it clear that for a specific incident “we are taking very targeted action on the unnatural links instead of your site as a whole.” So anyone that gets a message going forward can tell what type of action has occurred.

The second change is that these messages won’t show the yellow caution sign in our webmaster console at http://google.com/webmasters/ like our other webspam notifications. This reflects the fact that these actions are much more targeted and don’t always require action by the site owner.

The intention was good, because it provides a better picture to webmasters on what’s going on.   Unfortunately it cause some confusion on whether the ones that receiving the message should take any action.

What’s your say?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Angry Indian asks for Google’s physical address

{lang: 'ar'}
Matt Cutts Denied By Wikipedia (Almost)

Matt Cutts Denied By Wikipedia (Almost) (Photo credit: dannysullivan)

A very angry group oF iNDIANS THAT WANT TO MEET UP WITH HIM FACE TO FACE (Matt Cutts?), and they made the request on Google Webmaster Forum.   Why?   I am not so sure but probably it’s due to the Penguin and also the unnatural link warning messages that sent out by Google last Friday and also earlier today.    Not sure the cause of their anger, might be they failed to get G’s physical address from Google.  (joke)    Take it easy man…

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.