Slashdot Mirror


Is Google Breaking Their Own Rules?

flood6 writes "Threadwatch is carrying a story about Google getting caught doing things they ban other websites for. Here is a page as viewed by the public and the same page as viewed by a search engine (their cache)." Note that the titles in the cache are employing classic keyword stuffing, presumably to improve rankings.

44 of 552 comments (clear)

  1. So what? by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For now, the implications are simple - If Google can do this on it's own pages, why can ordinary webmasters not? Google's keyword stuffed, cloaked title would be hard to describe as anything other than an SEO tactic not so much frowned upon, but full on hated by the Search giant itself.

    Why? Because it's their site and they are in no need to follow their own rules. They aren't going to ban themselves but they will ban you. If you want to be listed on *the* search engine then follow their rules. If you don't care if anyone finds you then you can modify your page during crawler indexing and other sites can pick you up.

    1. Re:So what? by Ubergrendle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:So what? by pbranes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely. People tend to forget that google is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their search engine. Their goal in life is to keep you looking at their pages and using their> search engine so that they can show you more ads! Its all about money. Google is not making a search engine out of the goodness of their heart.

    3. Re:So what? by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If Google can do this on it's own pages, why can ordinary webmasters not?
      Quite. In fact, other webmasters can do it, as much as they like. Google aren't the web police... you won't be arrested or have your DNS removed. You won't rank highly on Google, but that reward is in Google's gift... and you have no right to dictate what they do.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:So what? by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely. People tend to forget that google is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their search engine...Google is not making a search engine out of the goodness of their heart.

      Right. Other people tend to forget that Google is not immune from oversight and criticism because they are a private corporation, and it is fully justified to call them on their activities if and when they pursue questionable avenues. No one, at least to my knowledge, is calling for government intervention, but are merely spreading the word of potentially hypocritical activities. As a user of search engines I want to hear this public criticism as it may eventually make me switch to whatever the new search engine is.

      As a sidenote, I find it remarkable how defensive the general Slashdot community is about Google. Let's try your post in a slightly different light and see what you think about it.

      Absolutely. People tend to forget that Microsoft is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their software. Their goal in life is to keep you buying their goods and using their software so that they can lock you in and sell you more! Its all about money. Google is not making software out of the goodness of their heart.

    5. Re:So what? by AndyMan1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I prefer the other golden rule: He who smelt it, dealt it.

    6. Re:So what? by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason this doesn't work is because Google can't "pay themselves" to use AdWords to pimp...AdWords. Besides, they own the company and make the rules. And maybe they should follow their own rules, but they most certainly don't have to. Besides, they don't block out competitor's results, they simply bring theirs to the top (Think: on-site searching, THEN offsite).

      I don't see Google in the wrong here.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    7. Re:So what? by poptix_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      There _is_ _no_ _evil_ here, they index their own internal pages with keywords because it's not going to have sufficient links for pagerank to work normally, It's gone now, it's probably a weekly/monthly process so that searches for AdWords comes up with relevant answers.

      Geez, people love Google when they're small, then they start looking for a reason to hate them. This isn't it folks, keep looking.

      --
      Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
    8. Re:So what? by deadlinegrunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " Absolutely. People tend to forget that Microsoft is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their software. Their goal in life is to keep you buying their goods and using their software so that they can lock you in and sell you more! Its all about money. Google is not making software out of the goodness of their heart."

      I hear your point but I would have used Sun instead of Microsoft. Since Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly power, they can't do whatever they want - hence the conviction.

      --
      BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
    9. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I prefer the other golden rule: He who smelt it, dealt it

      Obviously you are unfamiliar with the great flatulence fallacy. This rule is nothing but a ruse to distract from the real source of the foul odor.

    10. Re:So what? by Dr.+Zed · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I don't think Google should give preference to their own pages in their search engine.

      The page was a google cache page. Have you ever been served a google cache page as part of a Google search? I am fairly certain I haven't so I don't believe that this page would be a 'preference' in their search engine.

      Second, does anyone have ANY evidence that this page only has the keywords in the title BECAUSE it is cached. This could very easily be what the page WAS when it was cached, and someone changed the title at some point.

      The whole article sounds like FUD to me.

      By the way, to quickly get to a Google cache, try this bookmarklet:
      NAME:
      ::Google Cache for this page
      LOCATION:
      javascript:document.location.href= 'http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:' +document.location.href.replace(/http:\/\//,'')

    11. Re:So what? by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely. People tend to forget that Microsoft is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their software. Their goal in life is to keep you buying their goods and using their software so that they can lock you in and sell you more! Its all about money. Google is not making software out of the goodness of their heart.

      Honestly, if I were using Microsoft's search engine to search for information contained on Microsoft's own site I would certainly hope that they made the most relevant results show first.

      We aren't talking about Google and Microsoft dominating the world. We are talking about Google forcing high rankings on their own content on their own search engine.

    12. Re:So what? by FatRatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone sue Ford then since their website is promoting their products over the likes of GM, Toyota, etc.

    13. Re:So what? by monkeydo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WTF. I don't pay for my searches on Google. I just assumed that nobody else did either. So, what exactly do you think Google has a monopoly on, giving away search results?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  2. first cache? by farquharsoncraig · · Score: 5, Funny

    insightful interesting insightful interesting insightful interesting.

  3. for fun... by zxnos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    just for fun, insert 'Microsoft' in this discussion everytime someone writes 'Google' and see if you feel the same way.

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  4. Only one long term solution: by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    WikiSearch (or something like it). Long term we need an open peer-reviewed crawling and serving mechanism as bad as we need free OSs and browsers. How this is developed or funded I am not sure, maybe it will be the next breakthrough in P2P that obviates the need for the massive datacenter.

    Until there is a free and open search engine, you are beholden to whatever these firms wish to do.

  5. One thing I'd point out by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The keywords Google added to their title are limited in number and relevant to the actual page. This is rather different from the practice of a lot of SEOs of stuffing with several dozens of keywords and stuffing keywords that have nothing to do with the content of the page itself. And I notice that a lot of the SEOs squawking about this issue are among the worst offenders for high-volume irrelevant-keyword stuffing. Something to think about.

    1. Re:One thing I'd point out by HaloZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm glad someone else did, I wasn't quite sure how to word it.

      Adding keywords like 'traffic monitor' and such to a page about traffic monitoring is very different than stuffing 'PARIS-HILTON-XXX-TAPE-FULL' into a page about home equity loans.

      Google doing this in-house also gives them tighter control over what is stuffed where. Of course, this could be used to ensure quality hits, or simply elevate pages THEY want to the tops of the ranks. Searchola anyone?

      Anyone else notice how there seems to be alternating instances of Google-scandal articles and Google-innovations every single day? Tomorrow we'll find out that they've made the internet obsolete, and in doing so, they've skewered a number of kittens on spikes. Oh the horror!

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    2. Re:One thing I'd point out by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Or maybe, just maybe, this whole thing is much ado about nothing:
      bash-2.05b$ curl http://adwords.google.co.uk/robots.txt
      User-agent : *
      Disallow: /

      User-Agent: Googlebot
      Allow: /
      Allow: /support/
      Disallow: /*?
      bash-2.05b$

      In case it's not inherently obvious, that means no other search engines will even see the page. So that means that Google's results are being skewed by.... (wait for it) Google.
      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    3. Re:One thing I'd point out by Trepalium · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, and what's stupider still is if they wanted to skew their results, they could just modify their own engine to do so, and no one would ever know. On the other hand, see that little box at the bottom that lets you search the support site... and the fact keywords in the googlebot cache version are all related to the page in question. There couldn't be any... connection... could there? Like making their search page more accuract for their customers?

      NO! This must be a conspiracy by Google to destroy all other search engines by polluting them, while boosting their own pages. There's no other possible explanation! *sigh*

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
  6. Re:Could be keyword stuffing... by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's the fact that the title is different when a search engine views it versus when a person views it. Feeding different information to a search engine (with more keywords) is currently frowned upon, as people have abused it.

    Check the *title* of the two links. One has a comma separated list of keywords.

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  7. Stop the presses by klubkid79 · · Score: 5, Funny

    News at 11 ! Google is promoting themselves on their own website!

  8. Hrmmm by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tools -> Chrange browser Identification -> Other -> Googlebot.

    Nope... no change here.

    Isn't it possible that the TITLE entry in the google cache database got corrupted for this page?

    1. Re:Hrmmm by NetNifty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Changes for me. (Shown with Firefox User Agent Extension settings).

  9. so.... by jotux · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...this means when I search google.....for things related to google, google pages will make it higher in the search results?!?!

    I feel so betrayed!

  10. What? by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are they suggesting that google has to resort to keyword stuffing on cached pages to get a higher ranking on their own search engine? Is it me or is this unbelievably stupid? Surely, if they wanted too, they could just have their own pages rank top of whatever searchs they wanted- keywords or no keywords? Just some find of google flag in the ranking algorithm and they'd be done.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  11. Big Fat Deal. Live with it. by TheGuano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google doesn't need to stuff keywords for their own site - they could make their own Adwords page the only thing you ever see if you search for "traffic estimator." And why should Google care about stuffing keywords for Yahoo or Microsoft's earch engines? They don't control what you do for other search engines, either (if Google knew that your site only keyword-stuffed for MSN and Yahoo crawlers, would they care? No, they'd probably high-five you for screwing with their competitors' relevancy). There's no hypocrtical behavior here.

  12. Brittant Spears by Juiblex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their next step is to put on bottom of google.com front page, in font size 1, white foreground on white background:

    "britney spears
    brittany spears
    brittney spears
    britany spears
    britny spears
    briteny spears
    britteny spears
    briney spears
    brittny spears
    brintey spears
    britanny spears
    britiny spears
    britnet spears
    britiney spears
    britaney spears
    britnay spears
    brithney spears
    brtiney spears
    birtney spears
    brintney spears
    briteney spears
    bitney spears
    brinty spears
    brittaney spears
    brittnay spears
    britey spears
    brittiny spears
    brtney spears
    bretney spears
    britneys spears
    britne spears
    brytney spears
    breatney spears
    britiany spears
    britnney spears
    britnry spears
    breatny spears
    brittiney spears
    britty spears
    brotney spears
    brutney spears
    britteney spears
    briyney spears
    bittany spears
    bridney spears
    britainy spears
    britmey spears
    brietney spears
    brithny spears
    britni spears
    brittant spears
    bittney spears
    brithey spears
    brittiany spears
    btitney spears
    brietny spears
    brinety spears
    brintny spears
    britnie spears"

    1. Re:Brittant Spears by Juiblex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually they really did it... I got the list from Google itself =p

      http://labs.google.com/britney.html

  13. Re:Could be keyword stuffing... by northcat · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you even READ TFA? Google gives different pages for users and its own search engine. The user's pages are NOT stuffed with keywords, while the ones for its search engine are. This is OBVIOUSLY keyword stuffing and cloaking.

  14. There IS a difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google's business model DOES NOT rely on trapping users and forcing - practically blackmailing - it's victims to make exorbant payments for upgrades, Google DOES NOT have a death grip monopoly on the consumer Search Engine market, and the page in question does not further any political, social, business, economic, or other goals.

    Is it shifty and underhanded? Indeed, but Google has had a history of being a benign company, and as such do not deserve the same treatment as an actively malicious company.

    By the same logic which you have applied here, what would you be feeling if the names "Mother Teresa" and "Osama Bin Laden" were transposed?

  15. Google hasn't done a very good job... by PsychicX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Searching for "search engine" only brings up google in 5th place. They're certainly doing a shoddy job of being unfair.

  16. I find it funny how everyone is so pro-Google by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it was MS (if you use msn search or whatever their search engine is) made their products come out on top using such tactics then everyone would be trying to join the lynch mob. However if google does it its fine.

    What I do find interesting is that they needed the keywords, and didn't just raise their rank artificially. Does the google algorithm not have such a feature in it (or not have it easily accessible)? Potentially it does but google chose to not use it. In either case this is nicer than what I'd see other companies doing in such a case, since I doubt they'd bother with keywords on their own search engine.

  17. Re:No, wait by poptix_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're stuffing results for the internal search here: https://adwords.google.com/support/?hl=en_US

    All I see is people talking about how "dumb" they were to use such "obvious" cloaking techniques. Hello people, they were teaching their own search that is to be used on the adwords site. You don't tune your own internal search pages to help people find what they're looking for?

    Sounds like a lot of people upset over nothing.

    --
    Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
  18. It's been changed! by SiliconEntity · · Score: 4, Informative
    A lot of people are asking, what's going on here? The pages look the same now, but they were different before.

    The original article said:
    If you look at this Adwords page on Google you'll see at the top of your browser, the title:

    Google AdWords Support: How do I use the Traffic Estimator?

    That's what normal visitors like you and me will see when visiting the page.

    Now have a look at Google's cache of the same page - Notice the change in the title? It now reads:

    traffic estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic Google AdWords Support ...

    But now, the links point to a different page. It is no longer about "Google AdWords Support: How do I use the Traffic Estimator?". Now the page is, "Why do traffic estimates for my Ad Group differ from those given by the standalone tool?" It's a completely different page on a completely different topic. And for this page, there is no difference between the cached and direct views.

    That's why people are scratching their heads.

    I don't know whether Google did this to cover up their actions when they got caught, or whether it was a simple and routine rebuild of their help database which caused page numbers to change so that the links no longer point to where they did before.
  19. Re:Have I missed something? by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is NOT keyword spamming.

    Keyword spamming is when you put UNRELATED keywords in the title or "keywords" headers of a page.

    For example, if your page is a pile of ads for random stuff and your keywords are "tequila, mp3, oscars", then that's keyword spam. Putting the keywords in the title was a way to get around anti-keyword spamming techniques for a while. Many have said that putting keywords in the title is a bad thing because it results in unreadable titles, which is true.

    Google has no circumvented that by putting readable, usable titles in the pages served to users and relevant, but verbose titles in pages served to crawlers... and this is related to keyword spamming how?!

  20. Re:Could be keyword stuffing... by Joe+Mucchiello · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next check the robots.txt of their site. First item is Disallow: /search? The evil URL in question is starts with /search? Thus google does not want that page crawled by other websites. How does one stuff keywords on a page they don't want indexed?

  21. One important fact left out of the article... by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Informative
    There's just one thing the article and the summary fail to mention:

    bash-2.05b$ curl http://adwords.google.co.uk/robots.txt
    User-agent : *
    Disallow: /

    User-Agent: Googlebot
    Allow: /
    Allow: /support/
    Disallow: /*?
    bash-2.05b$

    (Try it yourself if you don't believe me)

    What that says is "Prevent any user agent from indexing anything below the root hierarchy, unless it's Googlebot, and then only allow the root level and /support/"

    So, no other search engines should ever be seeing this page. Basically, Google is using their own search engine to also index their own support information. And this is a problem because.... why?

    --
    There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  22. Re:No, wait by Xzzy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like a lot of people upset over nothing.

    Welcome to the internet!

  23. Re:Grammar Dork Says... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative
    That should be, "Are Google Breaking Their Own Rules," not "Is Google..."

    Sure, that agrees now, but it still sounds bad. "Google are really cool!" WTF? Just because a corporation consists of multiple people doesn't mean it's plural. The headline should have been, "Is Google Breaking Its Own Rules?"

    Oddly, this is the ONLY thing I get pedantic about when it comes to grammar.

  24. Relevancy is the key by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More to the point: ignorning the fact that this is google sending keywords to google; ignoring the fact that this their site and they can do whatever they want; ignoring the fact that people are using words like "evil" to describe something that affects exactly no one; ...

    The key point here is relevancy. The keywords are relevant and accurate. You might say that this breaks Google's style guidelines, and that's a good reason for them to bug-fix it. But, I fail to see how this is some great transgression on Google's part. This is USEFUL INFORMATION that they are putting in the title. Ugly, sure. I hate when eBay does the same thing. It's still not keyword spam, and it's still not cloaking. Cloaking is when you pretend to the search engine that you're a different kind of site so that you get ranked in with that kind of site. It's not putting keywords in ugly user-visible places when they are relevant.

    Please return to your useless ranting about Microsoft or something.

  25. Agreed. by Mr+Z · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yup. Looks to me like they're using the technique internally to file things orderly, since they're generating content that directly populates the database. The nice, handy newline between the keywords and the actual title in the HTML source also makes it trivial for scripts to strip it out later. If they were trying to hide something, they'd teach their cacher to delete the "secret" keywords.

    In contrast, for ad hoc "discovered" content, such as what a web spider crawling the rest of the web might find, such practices are hardly benign. Google can trust its own vision of how it wants its database to look, but not the intentions Mr. XXX HardCore Anal Sluts, or the guy that has Ad0be Ph0t0sh0p for 75% off, or worse yet, the guy who wants to "verify your account-holder information"...

    --Joe
  26. The shit sandwhich rule by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whoever has lots of bread, doesn't have to eat shit.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.