Comments on: SEO Myths part II

By: Razvan

Razvan — Wed, 03 May 2006 08:25:20 +0000

For me, manual intervention means that Google accepts $$$ cash from a company in order to list them in the “natural” search results as if they deserved to be there. People will be fooled into thinking that this site really has relevant information when in fact the site paid to be there. This kind of “manual intervention” is the most dangerous and, if it is happening, it will completely delete that search engine from my list.

Google is guaranteeing that the above manual intervention never happens.

But manual intervention do happens, and sometimes it is desirable. I remember that sometime ago you raised the issue of a very determined spammer that monopolized the search results for the Romanian words “chirii garsoniere”. When I saw your article I immediately informed Google about it. You will still see the spam results in some places (those with Delta Dunarii) but otherwise the results are *much* clean.

Currently, I can think to 2 types of manual intervention:

1. Anti-spam.
2. Google wants to promote their own products/services.

Well, I can live with that.

Regards,
Razvan

By: Razvan Antonescu

Razvan Antonescu — Tue, 02 May 2006 18:20:23 +0000

Completly agree with you. But than pls spare me the crap with no manual intervention in natural results. In order to pull the calendar to that position, someone went down (in fact 2 as they score on 2 different positions right now).

OIs not about moral because is private company and has the right to do whatever it wants, is about double standards here

By: Razvan

Razvan — Mon, 01 May 2006 07:55:20 +0000

If I would be part of the Google marketing team I would like to see the new Calendar application in the search results ASAP.
I am not sure whether this is moral or not as it is difficult to ask a company *not* to promote their own products/services using their own controlled media. Maybe others have stronger opinions about this…

Regards,
Razvan