"During the 60 days, the PageRank of www.google.com/chrome will also be lowered to reflect the fact that we also won’t trust outgoing links from that page."
That was the strangest part, for me.
Google clearly can trust outgoing links from www.google.com/chrome.
Its clear they had no intention of gaming their own system with this campaign. But they obviously feel the need to act in a 'beyond reproach' way, to avoid the accusation of conflicts-of-interest.
In one way its good that they are being held to high standards; on the other hand, this is resulting in less relevant search responses, for no real benefit to anyone (including those whom antitrust law, which they might be thinking about, is there to protect).
Hard to say what what the right thing to do is.
Sometimes, it looks like its a tough job to maintain the 'dont be evil' image.
The thing is, this just doesn't matter. They still have a Chrome ad at the top of every page and if people are looking to find Chrome it's already simple. The outgoing links don't matter, because the sites the Chrome page links to are also easy to find.
I'm aware of that. My point was that not much has actually changed in practical terms. Yes, there is a little "Ad" text and slightly different background, but both before and after, the first thing people see when they search for "google chrome" is the Chrome download page.
Here in Denmark Google doesn't advertise their browser. However Microsoft does. So a search for "browser" returns an ad for IE, wikipedia as the top result, and then Firefox, Opera and Safari without Google Chrome anywhere on the first search page. So it definitely has changed in practical terms.
You can look at absolutely anything as having selfish goals (even if they started giving out cookies for free), but for me this is above and beyond. They could have done a lot less about this as well.
I'm torn between "That's almost cute" and "This is wrist-slapping ourselves to give the appearance that we administer our guidelines in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious."
I'm sure trying to decide which snarky remark best conveys your condescending attitude towards a company's attempt to maintain its integrity and good standing is such a terrible dilemma.
If Google's integrity and good standing depends on not manipulating search results, there isn't a relevant case study for making such a determination - Google is still manipulating search results relative to Chrome.
Why would you buy links when you could just setup a link farm?
50 or 60 domains all hosted on a cheap shared hosting account running some lame PHP link farm script from a few years ago should do well. Just make sure the domain reggie doesn't point back at you.
You only buy links so that it appears like you've got an organic link farm instead of a mass produced one. Remember only Google is allowed to sell links, cuz they put them in a slightly yellow box or something. If other people could get you to the front page of google it would undermine Google's business model.
Yes, this was a smart response to a bad situation. If Google had done anything else it would have been heavily criticized. This was the right thing to do.
What I see when searching for "Google Chrome" is support.google.com/chrome, with sub-links underneath and the top-left sublink going directly to google.com/chrome. I think the system has been worked a little bit, but it's still interesting that they made this move. It may be enough to make it hard for people who have to search to find the download to get to it.
Its disappeared for me for the queries [browser], [internet browser] etc. The change probably takes a while to rollout everywhere. Probably fair that it still shows up for [chrome].
Maybe this is a dumb question as no one really asked it so far but, umm, I thought Google couldn't mess with rankings. Like, at all. I've read everywhere, even on Google's own properties that rankings are based on their top secret algorithm and that they not only cannot but will not manually manipulate results ever.
I really doubt they'd release a publicity statement that let loose such a big secret so what am I missing or misinterpreting? I really thought there was just no way possible to change results. I get that they can mess with ads but organic results?
Edit: Not to be that guy but what's with the downvotes? I'm honestly asking. If there's something dumb about it I'd really appreciate someone telling me. Then downvote all you like. Am I being naive to think they can't change a ranking? Am I misusing terms? What's up?
I suspect you are getting downvoted because it is obvious to programmers that because Google made the ranking system, it is possible for them to manipulate the rankings in whatever way they want.
Thank you. I'm a programmer too but I didn't get it. I figured that could be the case but then I wonder how? I, first of all, naively assumed they couldn't do it because they say they can't (shame on me for being so trusting), and then figured that if they changed the algorithm then there'd be collateral damage. I dont really get into algorithms much so I didn't know they could target a single page like that. The smart programmers would probably say I was a yellow belt compared to their black belt. Anyway, thanks for the answer.
It doesn't require any inside knowledge to manipulate the ranking system. There are some methods that you can't really architect against (like paid posts) from a software angle, so Google has rules and penalties in place to discourage sites from doing that in order to distort their page rank. In this case, one team seems to have accidentally run afoul of those rule and is being penalized appropriately because it makes sense in terms of the larger picture of protecting the quality of search results.
>"I thought Google couldn't mess with rankings. Like, at all."
Google has done this before. Binggate was one very public example.
As in the case of demoting Chrome, Google's rationalization was that the ends justified the means.
It would be somewhat unsurprising to me if that was also the rationalization behind promoting Chrome - keeping in mind that Google is a publicly traded company with an obligation to its shareholders not its users. Google is not a moral agent.
Regardless of the rationale, Google's willingness to manually manipulate page rank for the sake of PR doesn't make a positive impression on me. There was the appearance that Google was gaming SE results, publicly doing so does not seem like a very convincing argument that Google is above such practices.
In other words, I am not inclined to bestow accolades upon them for making real the concerns which were raised.
Well, at least they kind try to fix it, or, make it appear like so.
But yeah, it's like praising someone saying "ok, ill stop murdering people now", on a much lower level of course. (specially after being slapped on the wrist)
Google didn't say, "We will stop manipulating search results."
Instead, they said, "We were manipulating search results, and therefore we are so sorry, we are going to manipulate search results."
Promoting Chrome through the manipulation of search results was not the root problem. It was merely a symptom. Manipulating page rank for their own benefit is the problem, and that is their proposed solution.
It came only after the manipulation came to light and does not appear to be part of a larger project to end all manipulation for their benefit.
That was the strangest part, for me. Google clearly can trust outgoing links from www.google.com/chrome.
Its clear they had no intention of gaming their own system with this campaign. But they obviously feel the need to act in a 'beyond reproach' way, to avoid the accusation of conflicts-of-interest.
In one way its good that they are being held to high standards; on the other hand, this is resulting in less relevant search responses, for no real benefit to anyone (including those whom antitrust law, which they might be thinking about, is there to protect).
Hard to say what what the right thing to do is. Sometimes, it looks like its a tough job to maintain the 'dont be evil' image.